Search
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated Trophy Wife (The Dumont Diaries, #0.5-5) in Books
Feb 8, 2018
MMM, this is a hard one, on the one hand, I very much enjoyed Trophy Wife and on the other, there was some real no no's that totally turn me off when it comes to erotic fiction.
This is the main reason I've marked it down in my ratings.
Now obviously what sinks my ship may float your boat and more, we are all different and you may find my reasons don't bother you at all.
Now there are gonna be some teeny spoilers ahead as It's major unavoidable if I am going to explain why I've marked this down.
My major hard limit
CHEATING!!!!!
and not only cheating, the fact that no one's really bothered and I know this may seem a bit boring, but I like my Lover & Lovee to save the honey for each other, no excuses, no we were on a break and definitely no contact of any kind whatsoever, no exceptions and that means kissing also.
Why you might ask.
BECAUSE THERE MEANT TO BE BLOODY IN LOVE!!!!!!
or getting there at least and I'm a die hard romantic like that.
So yes no bodily contact with others while still being as filthy as downright sin is the flavour I like to see in my reading.
So, of course, this is where Trophy Wife let me down a bit, I maybe could have overlooked this if either Nathan or Candy had got their knickers in a twist diva style or something to that effect, but no let's brush it under the carpet like it never happened, and yes it's still cheating in my book when he takes his ex-girlfriend back and sleeps with her while still being married to Candy.
So the poor boy needed to get his leg over with his ex to decide he's in love with his wife geez!!
What happened did a shag unlock his brain.
And I do know that Candy is not exactly innocent either, They both behaved like a pair of absolute bloody pillocks in my opinion.
The second thing I had an issue with was the car incident. I have nothing against voyeurism at all but when Nathan gets candy to perform a certain service for his business associate and calls her a derogatory name in front of him well this wasn't hot or sexy one iota I was cringing in shame for the poor girl, awful behaviour.
The third and final thing and it may seem a tad silly but it's the name CANDY!!!
I hate it, it sounds like a stereotypical strippers name, which I know Candy is, but couldn't the poor girl have had something more sophisticated than Candy.
Despite my above bugbears, I really did like the rest of this book. It was mucky as hell and hot hot hot.
The story flowed brilliantly and I especially loved seeing the inner thoughts of both Candy & Nathan.
I feel that we needed to see inside Nathan's head as well as if I hadn't I don't know if I could have warmed to him at all.
He was such a dominant man, his vulnerability was so well hidden that it was his musings inside is own head that showed he had a softer side.
Trophy Wife by Alessandra Torre gets a three & half from me a great read with some issues that for me are just personal preferences.
You they might not affect at all.
Trophy Wife is currently free on KU.
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
This is the main reason I've marked it down in my ratings.
Now obviously what sinks my ship may float your boat and more, we are all different and you may find my reasons don't bother you at all.
Now there are gonna be some teeny spoilers ahead as It's major unavoidable if I am going to explain why I've marked this down.
My major hard limit
CHEATING!!!!!
and not only cheating, the fact that no one's really bothered and I know this may seem a bit boring, but I like my Lover & Lovee to save the honey for each other, no excuses, no we were on a break and definitely no contact of any kind whatsoever, no exceptions and that means kissing also.
Why you might ask.
BECAUSE THERE MEANT TO BE BLOODY IN LOVE!!!!!!
or getting there at least and I'm a die hard romantic like that.
So yes no bodily contact with others while still being as filthy as downright sin is the flavour I like to see in my reading.
So, of course, this is where Trophy Wife let me down a bit, I maybe could have overlooked this if either Nathan or Candy had got their knickers in a twist diva style or something to that effect, but no let's brush it under the carpet like it never happened, and yes it's still cheating in my book when he takes his ex-girlfriend back and sleeps with her while still being married to Candy.
So the poor boy needed to get his leg over with his ex to decide he's in love with his wife geez!!
What happened did a shag unlock his brain.
And I do know that Candy is not exactly innocent either, They both behaved like a pair of absolute bloody pillocks in my opinion.
The second thing I had an issue with was the car incident. I have nothing against voyeurism at all but when Nathan gets candy to perform a certain service for his business associate and calls her a derogatory name in front of him well this wasn't hot or sexy one iota I was cringing in shame for the poor girl, awful behaviour.
The third and final thing and it may seem a tad silly but it's the name CANDY!!!
I hate it, it sounds like a stereotypical strippers name, which I know Candy is, but couldn't the poor girl have had something more sophisticated than Candy.
Despite my above bugbears, I really did like the rest of this book. It was mucky as hell and hot hot hot.
The story flowed brilliantly and I especially loved seeing the inner thoughts of both Candy & Nathan.
I feel that we needed to see inside Nathan's head as well as if I hadn't I don't know if I could have warmed to him at all.
He was such a dominant man, his vulnerability was so well hidden that it was his musings inside is own head that showed he had a softer side.
Trophy Wife by Alessandra Torre gets a three & half from me a great read with some issues that for me are just personal preferences.
You they might not affect at all.
Trophy Wife is currently free on KU.
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.