Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Apartment (1960) in Movies
May 11, 2018
A true classic in every sense of the word
My local cinema does "Secret Movie Night" once a month, you just show up and watch a "classic" of their choosing, you just don't know what it is until it starts.
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pompeii (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The disaster movie has always been a genre guaranteed to create incredible box-office returns. If you look at Roland Emmerich’s impressive blockbuster hit 2012, which grossed over $750million, it is clear that destroying well-known landmarks = bums on seats.
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
Louise (64 KP) rated Camp Midnight in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I received an advanced readers copy of this book from the publisher and Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Skye is on her way to her fathers house for the summer, since the seperation of her parents she spends the holidays with him while her doctor mother travels to Rwanda. Skye really hates staying with her father and not because she doesn’t love him, it’s the evil step-mother (Gayle) or in Skye’s terms step-monster! Skye’s father, step -monster and even mother have a suprise in-store, instead of staying with her dad she is to go to Summer Camp! To Skye this is worse than staying with the Step-monster, but to make her father happy she agrees to go. Only when they arrive at the station they are very late and buses are starting to leave, in haste her father sees the bus ‘Camp Midnight’ and informs Skye thats her ride. Upon stepping on the bus Skye soon realises that some of these other kids are not normal and she is clearly on the wrong bus. She befriends Mia and they plan to stick together throughout their time at camp. Camp Midnight is full of witches, werewolves and other monsters of the night, Where the regime is to sleep through the day and wake at midnight. There are all sorts of activities which Skye is set that she is not participating, the group want her to reveal her inner monster but can she?
I enjoyed this book it was an easy quick read and humourous in places even when there were no words the pictures alone were comical (no pun intended) The writing text that was used was sometimes hard to read i.e. Mia looked a lot like Ma because it was so close together. I wasn’t a massive fan of the artwork it had a retro feel to it, the colours were mostly blue, red, orange and green but did complement the story well.
Skye obviously never took her parents separation well and with becoming a teenager, along comes the bitterness and sarcasm which is ineveitable in this stage of life. She is hostile towards her step mother and generally not a nice kid to be around. But true to its form a story like this would’t be worth telling if it didnt have, self discovery, friends, a love interest and also that can people can be different to what they appear to be.
Mia is the timid friend that Skye meets on the bus. Discovering that Mia has been here before and that she has enjoyed it they vow to stick with each other to ride the time out. Mia is very shy, appears to being picked on at the camp for being different and likes to be by herself but will not reveal her true-self to Skye as she believes that she will leave and once again become friendless.
The parents were just vulgar and neglectful, the step-mother was a bitch (sorry had to be said) and the father was easily persuaded by her and backed down and obeyed her demands like a dog…….THIS IS YOUR FRIGGIN KID FOR GOD SAKE!!!. Though I have to say, why is the step mum always evil? I know some great step mums! Annoying trope alert.
This book is not scary whatsoever, yes it has witches, werewolves and other mosters in there but the monster is used as a metaphor for teenagers, with them being confused of who they really are, moodswings etc etc….you get what I am getting at.
I would say this is for middle-grade to teens – it’s not scary but send out an important message.
Overall I rated this 3 stars
Skye is on her way to her fathers house for the summer, since the seperation of her parents she spends the holidays with him while her doctor mother travels to Rwanda. Skye really hates staying with her father and not because she doesn’t love him, it’s the evil step-mother (Gayle) or in Skye’s terms step-monster! Skye’s father, step -monster and even mother have a suprise in-store, instead of staying with her dad she is to go to Summer Camp! To Skye this is worse than staying with the Step-monster, but to make her father happy she agrees to go. Only when they arrive at the station they are very late and buses are starting to leave, in haste her father sees the bus ‘Camp Midnight’ and informs Skye thats her ride. Upon stepping on the bus Skye soon realises that some of these other kids are not normal and she is clearly on the wrong bus. She befriends Mia and they plan to stick together throughout their time at camp. Camp Midnight is full of witches, werewolves and other monsters of the night, Where the regime is to sleep through the day and wake at midnight. There are all sorts of activities which Skye is set that she is not participating, the group want her to reveal her inner monster but can she?
I enjoyed this book it was an easy quick read and humourous in places even when there were no words the pictures alone were comical (no pun intended) The writing text that was used was sometimes hard to read i.e. Mia looked a lot like Ma because it was so close together. I wasn’t a massive fan of the artwork it had a retro feel to it, the colours were mostly blue, red, orange and green but did complement the story well.
Skye obviously never took her parents separation well and with becoming a teenager, along comes the bitterness and sarcasm which is ineveitable in this stage of life. She is hostile towards her step mother and generally not a nice kid to be around. But true to its form a story like this would’t be worth telling if it didnt have, self discovery, friends, a love interest and also that can people can be different to what they appear to be.
Mia is the timid friend that Skye meets on the bus. Discovering that Mia has been here before and that she has enjoyed it they vow to stick with each other to ride the time out. Mia is very shy, appears to being picked on at the camp for being different and likes to be by herself but will not reveal her true-self to Skye as she believes that she will leave and once again become friendless.
The parents were just vulgar and neglectful, the step-mother was a bitch (sorry had to be said) and the father was easily persuaded by her and backed down and obeyed her demands like a dog…….THIS IS YOUR FRIGGIN KID FOR GOD SAKE!!!. Though I have to say, why is the step mum always evil? I know some great step mums! Annoying trope alert.
This book is not scary whatsoever, yes it has witches, werewolves and other mosters in there but the monster is used as a metaphor for teenagers, with them being confused of who they really are, moodswings etc etc….you get what I am getting at.
I would say this is for middle-grade to teens – it’s not scary but send out an important message.
Overall I rated this 3 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Lady in the Water (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
M. Night Shyamalan has crafted a true modern day Fairy Tale with his surprisingly delightful film Lady in the Water.
The film stars Paul Giamatti as Cleveland Heep, a property manager at a Philadelphia apartment complex known as “The Cove”. Cleveland spends his days maintaining the complex as well as interacting with the guests who reside there.
Cleveland is a very unassuming man who has a stutter that often causes him embarrassment when he is trying to hold a conversation. Life is busy but not very social for Cleveland who spends the majority of his free time in his apartment alone, and seems to have no social connections beyond his tenants.
All this changes when he discovers a young woman swimming in the pool after hours Cleveland is concerned what the tenants might think, but takes the young lady into his apartment as he suspects that she may be in trouble.
The lady is names Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), and she seems to possess an almost innocent naivety about her that belies her gentle nature. When Cleveland attempts to take the sleeping Story outside to rest on a lawn chair, he is confronted by a creature whose very nature exudes menace and danger which forces the duo to make a hasty retreat into his apartment.
Cleveland learns in time, that Story is a being from a fable that is here to contact an important figure in order to inspire them. Such inspiration is said to be a catalyst for events that will improve the future for mankind.
Naturally there are evil forces that wish to stop her from doing this and will take any opportunity they can to harm the frail Story and keep her from completing her task and returning home. This is a shock to Story, who thought she has completed her mission, and as such, under rules established by her people and the evil powers, is exempt from attacks and allowed to return home once a task has been completed. When this is not the case, and story is attacked as she prepares for her magical return, Cleveland draws upon the compassion of fellow tenants to protect Story.
Cleveland learns from a Korean tenant and her daughter about a legend that seems to underscore Story and her mission, and becomes eager to know more about the legend all the while keeping Story a secret as well as out of harms way.
In time it is learned what her true mission is and that a series of people are required in order to fully protect Story from the evil and allow her to accomplish what she is there to do, which in turn allows Story to connect with them and help many of them address the fears and concerns that they have thus inspiring and healing them with her magical abilities.
With a deadline rapidly approaching, Cleveland and the tenants must band together in order to help story complete her mission, and to determine which role each of them is supposed to play in order to keep her from harm and return her to her people.
While the film does have some scary moments, it is at its very core a fantasy film. The performances of Howard and Giamatti are strong and underscore that both are talents on the rise with bright futures ahead of them.
Shyamalan keeps the film moving at a nice pace that results in a tight film that does not drag on unnecessarily. Shyamalan is also plays a key part in the film and does solid work in front of the camera as well as behind it.
While the film may have a few plot holes and at times requires leaps of faith from the audience, it is a very warm film that blends humor and drama to create a very effective and enjoyable film.
The film stars Paul Giamatti as Cleveland Heep, a property manager at a Philadelphia apartment complex known as “The Cove”. Cleveland spends his days maintaining the complex as well as interacting with the guests who reside there.
Cleveland is a very unassuming man who has a stutter that often causes him embarrassment when he is trying to hold a conversation. Life is busy but not very social for Cleveland who spends the majority of his free time in his apartment alone, and seems to have no social connections beyond his tenants.
All this changes when he discovers a young woman swimming in the pool after hours Cleveland is concerned what the tenants might think, but takes the young lady into his apartment as he suspects that she may be in trouble.
The lady is names Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), and she seems to possess an almost innocent naivety about her that belies her gentle nature. When Cleveland attempts to take the sleeping Story outside to rest on a lawn chair, he is confronted by a creature whose very nature exudes menace and danger which forces the duo to make a hasty retreat into his apartment.
Cleveland learns in time, that Story is a being from a fable that is here to contact an important figure in order to inspire them. Such inspiration is said to be a catalyst for events that will improve the future for mankind.
Naturally there are evil forces that wish to stop her from doing this and will take any opportunity they can to harm the frail Story and keep her from completing her task and returning home. This is a shock to Story, who thought she has completed her mission, and as such, under rules established by her people and the evil powers, is exempt from attacks and allowed to return home once a task has been completed. When this is not the case, and story is attacked as she prepares for her magical return, Cleveland draws upon the compassion of fellow tenants to protect Story.
Cleveland learns from a Korean tenant and her daughter about a legend that seems to underscore Story and her mission, and becomes eager to know more about the legend all the while keeping Story a secret as well as out of harms way.
In time it is learned what her true mission is and that a series of people are required in order to fully protect Story from the evil and allow her to accomplish what she is there to do, which in turn allows Story to connect with them and help many of them address the fears and concerns that they have thus inspiring and healing them with her magical abilities.
With a deadline rapidly approaching, Cleveland and the tenants must band together in order to help story complete her mission, and to determine which role each of them is supposed to play in order to keep her from harm and return her to her people.
While the film does have some scary moments, it is at its very core a fantasy film. The performances of Howard and Giamatti are strong and underscore that both are talents on the rise with bright futures ahead of them.
Shyamalan keeps the film moving at a nice pace that results in a tight film that does not drag on unnecessarily. Shyamalan is also plays a key part in the film and does solid work in front of the camera as well as behind it.
While the film may have a few plot holes and at times requires leaps of faith from the audience, it is a very warm film that blends humor and drama to create a very effective and enjoyable film.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Raven Boys in Books
Apr 20, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3053741934">The Raven Boys</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3255973750">The Dream Thieves</a> - Not Read Yet
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Book-Review-Banner-30.png"/>;
Even if Blue hadn't been told her true love would die if she kissed him, she would stay away from boys. Especially the ones from the local private school. Known as Raven Boys, they only mean trouble.
<b>But this is the year that everything will change for Blue.</b>
This is the year that she will be drawn into the strange and sinister world of the Raven Boys. And the year Blue will discover that magic does exist.
<b>This is the year she will fall in love.</b>
<b><i>"Blue, I know you're not an idiot. It's just, sometimes smart people do dumb things."</i></b>
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9pCUtygUUw/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading">View this post on Instagram</a>
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/IMG_20200312_170023_767-300x300.jpg"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I enjoyed The Raven Boys. I have been meaning to read this book for such a long time, and I am so happy I finally managed to scratch it off my list.
I loved the beginning and I loved Blue and her witch family. It gave me vibes of Charmed - a TV Show that was my favourite when I was growing up.
Her family does readings and Blue has known her prediction her whole life. She knows that if she kisses her true love, he will die. Even though everyone else in her family has powers, Blue doesn’t. Her power is to amplify other people’s superpowers. So when her family does a reading and Blue is present, they can predict the future better.
When Blue meets The Raven Boys, she knows they’re trouble. But there is an opportunity for her to really see and feel magic, something she hasn’t ever done before, and this temptation will be too much for her to resist.
<b><i>"Once Arthur knew the grail exited, how could he not look for it?"</i></b>
<b>I loved The Raven Boys gang.</b>
They were awesome, and brutal, and handsome and smart. They all had their own challenges and character development throughout the book and I enjoyed watching them grow.
I was and still am so unsure about that ending and the fact that I was left more confused than when I started reading the book. There is a feeling I have like I need to re-read this book to fully understand everything, and it’s not a very good vibe.
I still enjoyed it and would definitely read the second book, but I was hoping this would be one of my favourite books and it wasn’t. Maybe the next time around, eh?
I highly recommend it if you love fantasy, magic, handsome boys and young-adult books in general. It is a very interesting book, with lots of mysteries and twists, and a very confusing ending (which some may enjoy).
<b><i>"People shout when they don't have the vocabulary to whisper."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3053741934">The Raven Boys</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3255973750">The Dream Thieves</a> - Not Read Yet
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Book-Review-Banner-30.png"/>;
Even if Blue hadn't been told her true love would die if she kissed him, she would stay away from boys. Especially the ones from the local private school. Known as Raven Boys, they only mean trouble.
<b>But this is the year that everything will change for Blue.</b>
This is the year that she will be drawn into the strange and sinister world of the Raven Boys. And the year Blue will discover that magic does exist.
<b>This is the year she will fall in love.</b>
<b><i>"Blue, I know you're not an idiot. It's just, sometimes smart people do dumb things."</i></b>
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9pCUtygUUw/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading">View this post on Instagram</a>
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/IMG_20200312_170023_767-300x300.jpg"/>;
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I enjoyed The Raven Boys. I have been meaning to read this book for such a long time, and I am so happy I finally managed to scratch it off my list.
I loved the beginning and I loved Blue and her witch family. It gave me vibes of Charmed - a TV Show that was my favourite when I was growing up.
Her family does readings and Blue has known her prediction her whole life. She knows that if she kisses her true love, he will die. Even though everyone else in her family has powers, Blue doesn’t. Her power is to amplify other people’s superpowers. So when her family does a reading and Blue is present, they can predict the future better.
When Blue meets The Raven Boys, she knows they’re trouble. But there is an opportunity for her to really see and feel magic, something she hasn’t ever done before, and this temptation will be too much for her to resist.
<b><i>"Once Arthur knew the grail exited, how could he not look for it?"</i></b>
<b>I loved The Raven Boys gang.</b>
They were awesome, and brutal, and handsome and smart. They all had their own challenges and character development throughout the book and I enjoyed watching them grow.
I was and still am so unsure about that ending and the fact that I was left more confused than when I started reading the book. There is a feeling I have like I need to re-read this book to fully understand everything, and it’s not a very good vibe.
I still enjoyed it and would definitely read the second book, but I was hoping this would be one of my favourite books and it wasn’t. Maybe the next time around, eh?
I highly recommend it if you love fantasy, magic, handsome boys and young-adult books in general. It is a very interesting book, with lots of mysteries and twists, and a very confusing ending (which some may enjoy).
<b><i>"People shout when they don't have the vocabulary to whisper."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Erika (17788 KP) rated Sophie: A Murder In West Cork in TV
Jul 31, 2021
Sophie: A Murder in West Cork, is one of Netflix’s newest true crime series offerings. Consisting of three episodes, the series examines the murder case of Sophie Toscan Du Plantier, a French National that was murdered at her rural holiday getaway home in Schull, Ireland in 1996. Du Plantier’s murder was the first in over 100 years in the small town and remains technically unsolved.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planier’s family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planier’s private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didn’t know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldn’t think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and ‘poet’, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planier’s family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the ‘others’ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
I’m all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasn’t been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasn’t the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldn’t have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didn’t feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. I’m interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
The documentary series had a wide variety of talking heads, from Du Planier’s family, friends, locals, various members of the Garda, and surprisingly, the main suspect. Du Planier’s private life seemed complicated, and it was definitely going to be utilized against her throughout the entire thing.
The case was interesting, Du Planier was found in a bramble bush a few days before Christmas. With seemingly no leads, and a haphazard investigation, I didn’t know how they would end up with a suspect. The first episode set everything up, establishing what the town was like by interviewing the locals. There was even a little spookiness brought in. A few days before her death, Du Planier had visited some ruins, and saw a white lady, which was an omen of death. Pretty interesting, and you wouldn’t think it was pertinent, however, Du Planier took it seriously.
If you watch enough true crime documentaries, you know normally what a killer would do, revisit the scene, be overly helpful, etc. It was clear as soon as they introduced the journalist that he was indeed the suspect. However, when the second episode started, the series was taken over by the main suspect, journalist and ‘poet’, Ian Bailey. As one of Du Planier’s family members quipped, he loves to be interviewed.
Somehow, Bailey had all of this insider knowledge, and wrote somewhat salacious articles about Du Planier, painting her as this woman that entertained all sorts of men. He was also very adamant that the murder was French, and probably her partner or another intimate partner. Bailey was somewhat charismatic, but a complete weirdo. It is common for law enforcement to go after the ‘others’ in society, so was he targeted because he was eccentric? Who knows?
It was clear that the Garda in this area had no idea as to what to do. They may have also had a little tunnel vision because the village creep was poking around the crime scene.
I’m all for presenting all sides to a case, but having the suspect take over in a very charismatic way is not the best approach. The Garda in the area, inexperienced in investigating murders, was obviously not equipped to deal with the investigation. It was clear from the beginning that it was the primary reason the case hasn’t been officially prosecuted in Ireland.
Whenever your documentary begins to get overtaken by the number one suspect, rather than the victim, I begin to have issues. It was also interesting that at the end of the series, there was actually a statement that Du Planier had been forgotten throughout the entire event, and while she was present, she wasn’t the center of the story.
Bailey seems to be the most likely culprit, though, the Garda couldn’t have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt. It was interesting that somehow in France, the evidence was considered solid enough for a conviction.
I did generally enjoy the documentary series, but again, I have an issue with the main suspect overshadowing the victim. Also, I didn’t feel like enough evidence was presented, and the majority of it was slightly repetitive. I’m interested to see if the case is ever resolved. Based upon the series, probably not.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
Kristina (502 KP) rated It Ends With Us in Books
Dec 7, 2020
Holy mother of God. I don't know where to start, honestly. Colleen is very good at stunning me into silence, so it's difficult to put my emotions into words - which is why you'll notice I either have no reviews or pretty vague reviews for her books. But I just can't do that with this one. There's no way. What I read wrung me dry and had me staring at the wall for a full 5 minutes before I could even move. What Lily experiences is so real and raw, so emotional, I felt like I was her. Her thoughts were true to who she was and honest. As I read Lily's diary entries, I felt a kinship, because I had experienced some of the same growing up. I felt her fear, her worry, her anger, her curiosity. To watch your mother go through that is no fun. I found it endearing that Lily wrote her diary in the form of letters to Ellen DeGeneres - she's an awesome woman. I fell in love twice in the span of one book. Even though I hoped I was wrong, I had a strong premonition, and I was right about it. I truly wish I wasn't. After reading the Author's note, I completely agree with Colleen. I kind of wish she had written it differently; I kind of wish she hadn't used the plot that she did. But, as she also said, it would have ruined the whole point of writing this story, and I understand that. I still love the story, because it's beautiful (yet heartbreaking) in all its glory, and it gets the meaning across just the way Colleen meant it to. I'm ashamed to say I was like many of the others: "Why doesn't she just leave?" Sure, I questioned the opposite spouse, but this question has always been the first to enter my mind. After reading It Ends With Us, I feel even worse that I've ever had that thought. It's true, life isn't just black and white, and niether is any situation. We never truly know what it's like for anyone unless we were in that same situation - and no two situations are exactly alike. All I can say is that while I fell in love twice, my heart broke a million times, and it still didn't feel completely whole by the time the story ended. I do hope Colleen decides to write a short novella about Lily's future, because I feel like I need more closure. My heart needs more closure. Nothing could have prepared me for this book and I have absolutely no regrets about going in blind. The Queen never ceases to amaze me. Once again, I'm adding a CoHo book to my favorites shelf. Bravo, Colleen.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.