Search
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Dana (24 KP) rated Vanishing Girls in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I am not sure why I keep being surprised at how good books are, especially since I have read some of these authors before! This book is no different. I was thinking this book would be just okay, nothing too memorable, but I was so wrong! Oh, and I got to meet Lauren Oliver at Yallwest 2015! She was so sweet and signed my book!!
This book is interesting in its set up. It is told in a "Before and After" story line by two characters: Dara and Nick. There are also some photographs and some blog post type pages which were really interesting.
So I am going to try to write whenever there is a large spoiler, but there may be some minor plot points written throughout. So look out for SPOILERS in the review if you want to skip those.
Okay, so I'm going to start off with talking about the three main characters: Dara, Nick, and Parker.
Nick is the main character of this book and, honestly, she was very interesting. She seems quite detached throughout a good part of the book, specifically the first half. I did not like either of the sisters at first, if I am being completely honest. But then I grew to partially understand both of them separately. Nick is emotionally distant because, as seen in the beginning of the book, she sees herself as needing to be the responsible one out of the two sisters. Where Dara is wildness and spontaneity, Nick is the reserved older sister who has to keep her sister in line. Nick, however, is not all she seems. It is known that there was a bad car accident that happened before the book started, but none of the details were really disclosed. Neither person involved really wanted to talk about it. SPOILERS ARE IN THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH!! I wasn't a fan of how Nick treated both Dara and Parker. For Dara, it can easily be understood why she wouldn't want to talk to Nick. I would be pretty upset if that was my situation as well, but Nick seemed like she was just being petty. With Parker, she was unfair. Yes, they had been best friends and then he started dating her sister, but they were still best friends. She could have at least tried to talk to him about her feelings, but no. She didn't.
Dara was a very complex character. It seemed as if she would rebel just to do it and to see if she could get a rise out of her sister and/or her parents. She is wild and reckless because she needs to try to distance herself from her sister's shadow. I totally understand that (even if I would not take that path myself). I think her story arc was very interesting, to say the least. I will go more into the plot points a bit later, though.
Parker was just a guy who was caught in a tough situation. Yes, he was dumb in putting himself in that situation, but he seemed like a pretty good guy all in all. I enjoyed his story line because he grounded the other characters in the real world.
Okay, now onto the plot. THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THE REST OF THE REVIEW EXCEPT FOR THE LAST PARAGRAPH. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SPOILED, SKIP DOWN FOR MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK.
Okay, so the plot. Oh my goodness, that was a good story. I really liked the complexity and all of the little connections throughout the two time lines.
Let's start with the "before." We get to see a lot of how Nick and Dara's relationship had disintegrated the closer to the accident we get. I loved getting it intermittent between the "after" sections because sometimes it made the previous chapter more clear, but a lot of the time, it convoluted it just enough to keep me intrigued. Each moment up to the accident felt like it had more tension because you, as the reader, knew what was coming, but not necessarily when or how. I do wish, however, we got more of the accident itself. That would have been pretty cool.
Now onto the "after." Wow. If you want a really complex story line that you won't see coming, read this book. That freaking plot twist was not something I called, and I am normally really good at calling them! I think I was too preoccupied trying to figure out what happened in the accident to see all of the signs (and there were a lot of them) of the truth of what happened. I loved how Lauren Oliver was able to explore mental health issues that we don't normally get to see in a young adult novel. The post-traumatic stress is usually shown as being withdrawn, not all of the other symptoms that may be possible in the human mind. I don't even necessarily want to touch on the FanLand plot line because it's pretty self explanatory. I did like how those were bright moments in the otherwise very dark story. I could go on and on about this section, but I'll keep it short. If you want to talk to me more about my thoughts on it, then feel free to message me about it!
Madeline Snow's story line was really cool. Not what happened to her, of course, that was super messed up, but the unraveling of what happened was crazy! Oh, and the disappearance actually happened on my birthday. Super random fact, but hey, at least it's interesting? Okay, lets start with the fact that there was a semi-sex trafficking ring going on and that wasn't even the highlight of the book. You know it is an intense book when that happens. I thought it was really interesting that Nick's mom was so enraptured with the case, because instead of noticing her daughter's struggles, she is focused on a stranger. I do like how it ended, us learning about the truth of the accident while learning about the truth of Madeline's disappearance because they were very interconnected! I am very thankful of how it truly ended happily rather than a very horrible possibility.
Overall, I was highly impressed by this book. As I said, this has become one of my favorite books of the year! If you enjoy thriller, suspense, or mystery books, definitely check this one out!
This book is interesting in its set up. It is told in a "Before and After" story line by two characters: Dara and Nick. There are also some photographs and some blog post type pages which were really interesting.
So I am going to try to write whenever there is a large spoiler, but there may be some minor plot points written throughout. So look out for SPOILERS in the review if you want to skip those.
Okay, so I'm going to start off with talking about the three main characters: Dara, Nick, and Parker.
Nick is the main character of this book and, honestly, she was very interesting. She seems quite detached throughout a good part of the book, specifically the first half. I did not like either of the sisters at first, if I am being completely honest. But then I grew to partially understand both of them separately. Nick is emotionally distant because, as seen in the beginning of the book, she sees herself as needing to be the responsible one out of the two sisters. Where Dara is wildness and spontaneity, Nick is the reserved older sister who has to keep her sister in line. Nick, however, is not all she seems. It is known that there was a bad car accident that happened before the book started, but none of the details were really disclosed. Neither person involved really wanted to talk about it. SPOILERS ARE IN THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH!! I wasn't a fan of how Nick treated both Dara and Parker. For Dara, it can easily be understood why she wouldn't want to talk to Nick. I would be pretty upset if that was my situation as well, but Nick seemed like she was just being petty. With Parker, she was unfair. Yes, they had been best friends and then he started dating her sister, but they were still best friends. She could have at least tried to talk to him about her feelings, but no. She didn't.
Dara was a very complex character. It seemed as if she would rebel just to do it and to see if she could get a rise out of her sister and/or her parents. She is wild and reckless because she needs to try to distance herself from her sister's shadow. I totally understand that (even if I would not take that path myself). I think her story arc was very interesting, to say the least. I will go more into the plot points a bit later, though.
Parker was just a guy who was caught in a tough situation. Yes, he was dumb in putting himself in that situation, but he seemed like a pretty good guy all in all. I enjoyed his story line because he grounded the other characters in the real world.
Okay, now onto the plot. THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THE REST OF THE REVIEW EXCEPT FOR THE LAST PARAGRAPH. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SPOILED, SKIP DOWN FOR MY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE BOOK.
Okay, so the plot. Oh my goodness, that was a good story. I really liked the complexity and all of the little connections throughout the two time lines.
Let's start with the "before." We get to see a lot of how Nick and Dara's relationship had disintegrated the closer to the accident we get. I loved getting it intermittent between the "after" sections because sometimes it made the previous chapter more clear, but a lot of the time, it convoluted it just enough to keep me intrigued. Each moment up to the accident felt like it had more tension because you, as the reader, knew what was coming, but not necessarily when or how. I do wish, however, we got more of the accident itself. That would have been pretty cool.
Now onto the "after." Wow. If you want a really complex story line that you won't see coming, read this book. That freaking plot twist was not something I called, and I am normally really good at calling them! I think I was too preoccupied trying to figure out what happened in the accident to see all of the signs (and there were a lot of them) of the truth of what happened. I loved how Lauren Oliver was able to explore mental health issues that we don't normally get to see in a young adult novel. The post-traumatic stress is usually shown as being withdrawn, not all of the other symptoms that may be possible in the human mind. I don't even necessarily want to touch on the FanLand plot line because it's pretty self explanatory. I did like how those were bright moments in the otherwise very dark story. I could go on and on about this section, but I'll keep it short. If you want to talk to me more about my thoughts on it, then feel free to message me about it!
Madeline Snow's story line was really cool. Not what happened to her, of course, that was super messed up, but the unraveling of what happened was crazy! Oh, and the disappearance actually happened on my birthday. Super random fact, but hey, at least it's interesting? Okay, lets start with the fact that there was a semi-sex trafficking ring going on and that wasn't even the highlight of the book. You know it is an intense book when that happens. I thought it was really interesting that Nick's mom was so enraptured with the case, because instead of noticing her daughter's struggles, she is focused on a stranger. I do like how it ended, us learning about the truth of the accident while learning about the truth of Madeline's disappearance because they were very interconnected! I am very thankful of how it truly ended happily rather than a very horrible possibility.
Overall, I was highly impressed by this book. As I said, this has become one of my favorite books of the year! If you enjoy thriller, suspense, or mystery books, definitely check this one out!