Search
Search results
Louise (64 KP) rated I'll Give You the Sun in Books
Jul 2, 2018
I'll give you the sun follows twins Noah and Jude that are aspiring artists. They are both working on their portfolios to get into a prestigious art school in the local area when a tragedy pulls them apart and they start to live two separate lives.
I loved this book the writing was so poetic and beautiful. The story is written from two perspectives and at different times. Noah's perspective is written when he is 13. 5 years old and before 'said' tragedy struck and Jude's when she is 16 - two years later. At 13 years old the pair were close with sibling rivalries, respecting each others art and dividing the world up.
“I gave up practically the whole world for you,” I tell him, walking through the front door of my own love story. “The sun, stars, ocean, trees, everything, I gave it all up for you.”
At 16 the pair couldn't be further apart, they constantly avoid each other and barely talk. When lies start to unravel and they discover the truth, can they become two once more.
Noah is a painter, he's such a cute young boy, with his confusion of being gay and what it means to come out is so cleverly portrayed through this character. The frustration and tension is palpable between him and Brian. The want of your heart desires and the reality of doing and facing the backlash from the people around you is what stops him. Noah has never been perceived as 'normal' to his class mates and being bullied is a daily problem until he meets the new kid Brian who is a baseball player for his local school, with Brian by his side he becomes socially accepted, even though he knows that Brian is a bit of geek like himself with his meteorite collections.
Jude an ambitious sculptor is a young impressionable girl at the age of 14, however as she is telling her POV at the age of 16 she has had a lot of time to develop but also grieve at the same time. Jude is struggling at school, she hasn't made any good artwork for the past 2 years and believes there is someone out to destroy her pieces. She has one last chance to make it right and is sent to work with a local but famous sculptor. The sculptor has problems of his own and between the both of them they start to overcome their grief through the process of sculpting.
Oscar is not the typical cool guy, who has everything going for him with his distinguishable features, his past and present he is also on the road to self discovery. When we first meet Oscar in Noah's perspective he is a drunk, with ambitions to be a model. 2 years later in Jude's perspective he is a recovering alcoholic/drug user, going to college for photography and has a cocky side to him which covers up the true Oscar.
“It occurs to me that Jude does this too, changes who she is depending on who she’s with. They’re like toads changing their skin color. How come I’m always just me?”
There were only two things that stopped me from giving this book 5 stars and it's not much but I had to factor them in. I found the book a bit predictable in some parts. You could tell how it was going to pan out. Also the ending felt a bit rushed for me towards the end, I think it could have been a bit longer to make the ending a bit more bulkier. The thing I liked with Nelson's writing is your reading away and then BAM! She just lets you have this incredible fact like it's nothing major and I had to reread to make sure I hadn't read it wrong. The grandma's bible that Jude follows got a bit tiresome in the end.
I went in to this book blind, not knowing too much about the premise and I recommend it, I like going in to books not knowing much it is more surprising and enjoyable to read. There are references in the book to famous people and quotes such as Winston Churchill and E.E Cummings. This book deals with love, bullying, grief, growing up, self discovery and all the challenges of being a teenager.
I recommend this book to anyone that likes to read Young Adult and Contemporary novels.
Overall I rated this book 4.5 stars out of 5.
I loved this book the writing was so poetic and beautiful. The story is written from two perspectives and at different times. Noah's perspective is written when he is 13. 5 years old and before 'said' tragedy struck and Jude's when she is 16 - two years later. At 13 years old the pair were close with sibling rivalries, respecting each others art and dividing the world up.
“I gave up practically the whole world for you,” I tell him, walking through the front door of my own love story. “The sun, stars, ocean, trees, everything, I gave it all up for you.”
At 16 the pair couldn't be further apart, they constantly avoid each other and barely talk. When lies start to unravel and they discover the truth, can they become two once more.
Noah is a painter, he's such a cute young boy, with his confusion of being gay and what it means to come out is so cleverly portrayed through this character. The frustration and tension is palpable between him and Brian. The want of your heart desires and the reality of doing and facing the backlash from the people around you is what stops him. Noah has never been perceived as 'normal' to his class mates and being bullied is a daily problem until he meets the new kid Brian who is a baseball player for his local school, with Brian by his side he becomes socially accepted, even though he knows that Brian is a bit of geek like himself with his meteorite collections.
Jude an ambitious sculptor is a young impressionable girl at the age of 14, however as she is telling her POV at the age of 16 she has had a lot of time to develop but also grieve at the same time. Jude is struggling at school, she hasn't made any good artwork for the past 2 years and believes there is someone out to destroy her pieces. She has one last chance to make it right and is sent to work with a local but famous sculptor. The sculptor has problems of his own and between the both of them they start to overcome their grief through the process of sculpting.
Oscar is not the typical cool guy, who has everything going for him with his distinguishable features, his past and present he is also on the road to self discovery. When we first meet Oscar in Noah's perspective he is a drunk, with ambitions to be a model. 2 years later in Jude's perspective he is a recovering alcoholic/drug user, going to college for photography and has a cocky side to him which covers up the true Oscar.
“It occurs to me that Jude does this too, changes who she is depending on who she’s with. They’re like toads changing their skin color. How come I’m always just me?”
There were only two things that stopped me from giving this book 5 stars and it's not much but I had to factor them in. I found the book a bit predictable in some parts. You could tell how it was going to pan out. Also the ending felt a bit rushed for me towards the end, I think it could have been a bit longer to make the ending a bit more bulkier. The thing I liked with Nelson's writing is your reading away and then BAM! She just lets you have this incredible fact like it's nothing major and I had to reread to make sure I hadn't read it wrong. The grandma's bible that Jude follows got a bit tiresome in the end.
I went in to this book blind, not knowing too much about the premise and I recommend it, I like going in to books not knowing much it is more surprising and enjoyable to read. There are references in the book to famous people and quotes such as Winston Churchill and E.E Cummings. This book deals with love, bullying, grief, growing up, self discovery and all the challenges of being a teenager.
I recommend this book to anyone that likes to read Young Adult and Contemporary novels.
Overall I rated this book 4.5 stars out of 5.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Lee Richmond (19 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Mar 5, 2019
Face your fate.
It's 1999 and my twenty years younger self is spending the entire year getting hyped for The Phantom Menace. That movie dominated my year. I had queued at ToysRUs when they released the new figures just to get my hands on a Darth Maul and a Podracer. I had brought the CD of John Williams Soundtrack. I had seen every trailer countless times and as soon as they were put on sale I brought two tickets so that I could watch the movie twice on the same day. I sat in the theatre as the Lucasfilm logo appeared and thought 'this is it'. Then the end credits rolled and I left the movie and headed to get something to eat before the next showing, all the while trying to convince myself that I had loved what I had just watched. Truth is I couldn't do it. I hadn't loved it at all. It left me deflated and all I could think was that I had to sit and watch it all again as all that excitement turned to shit with every clunky piece of dialogue and every scene featuring Jar Jar fucking Binks. It hurt and I promised I would never get so hyped for a movie again.
Fast forward to 2018. I had been excited for the prospect of Halloween since it was announced. Jamie Lee was involved and it was a direct sequel. Both of these things had me invested. Then the trailer dropped and that old familiar feeling of hype that I had promised to forgo started to creep over me once more. Now I should add that John Carpenters original 1978 movie is one of my all time favourites. I love that movie. To me it is an example of perfect horror story telling. It's simple yet incredibly effective at doing what it says on the tin and I rewatch it every year on Haloween as a tradition.
Time came for opening night and I had purchased my ticket in advance (but only one this time just in case) and as we sat waiting for the movie to start even my wife commented that I appeared nervous. I was nervous. I had every right to be nervous because the mishandling of something that means so much to me would mean major disappointment. I am a movie geek. Movies mean so much to me, especially Halloween and I take disappointment pretty badly. So the movie played out. That old familiar score played over the top of bright orange titles against a black background as a pumpkin seemed to unrot and I loved it. I loved the steady build to Michaels escape. I loved how being locked up for so long just seemed to make him more relentless. Once he was out and let loose on Haddonfield I was hooked. The killing spree that followed as Michael went from house to house on a rampage fueled by 40 years of incarceration had me mentally punching the air with happiness. Jamie Lee Curtis though was something else all together. Her portrayal of Laurie suffering from four decades of pent up PTSD was nothing short of brilliant. I could really feel for this character that I have adored for so many years. Laurie will always be my number 1 final girl. She survived the original Halloween because she was smart, and wasn't distracted like her sex mad, airhead friends. Seeing how the events of the first film had effected her life so dramatically was like watching an old friend going through a really hard time. The closing twenty minutes literally had me on the edge of my seat as Laurie searches one dark room after another, the hunted becoming the hunter. You know Michael is there lurking somewhere, but where? The final image as a trapped Michael stares up at his escaping prey, so fixed on Laurie that he fails to even notice that he is being engulfed in flames really stuck with me after the credits rolled.
Now I'm not going as far as to say this film was perfect. Some of the humour fell a little flat and felt out of place and I hated the new Dr Loomis character and his plot twist. It felt crowbarred in and completely unnecessary. Had the rest of the film not been as tight it would have taken me out of the movie completely, but thankfully that was not the case. A lot of love and passion went into making this movie. Clearly the film makers are fans of the original and that really comes across on screen. It really honours Carpenters movie and evidently comes across as a love letter more than a cash in. I know this movie divided people. You either loved it or hated it and I am definitely in the camp of the former. Do I want another sequel? If the quality of this one is maintained then hell yeah. Halloween 2018 has taught me that allowing myself to get a little hyped now and again can sometimes be rewarding. Not everything has to be The Phantom Menace.
Fast forward to 2018. I had been excited for the prospect of Halloween since it was announced. Jamie Lee was involved and it was a direct sequel. Both of these things had me invested. Then the trailer dropped and that old familiar feeling of hype that I had promised to forgo started to creep over me once more. Now I should add that John Carpenters original 1978 movie is one of my all time favourites. I love that movie. To me it is an example of perfect horror story telling. It's simple yet incredibly effective at doing what it says on the tin and I rewatch it every year on Haloween as a tradition.
Time came for opening night and I had purchased my ticket in advance (but only one this time just in case) and as we sat waiting for the movie to start even my wife commented that I appeared nervous. I was nervous. I had every right to be nervous because the mishandling of something that means so much to me would mean major disappointment. I am a movie geek. Movies mean so much to me, especially Halloween and I take disappointment pretty badly. So the movie played out. That old familiar score played over the top of bright orange titles against a black background as a pumpkin seemed to unrot and I loved it. I loved the steady build to Michaels escape. I loved how being locked up for so long just seemed to make him more relentless. Once he was out and let loose on Haddonfield I was hooked. The killing spree that followed as Michael went from house to house on a rampage fueled by 40 years of incarceration had me mentally punching the air with happiness. Jamie Lee Curtis though was something else all together. Her portrayal of Laurie suffering from four decades of pent up PTSD was nothing short of brilliant. I could really feel for this character that I have adored for so many years. Laurie will always be my number 1 final girl. She survived the original Halloween because she was smart, and wasn't distracted like her sex mad, airhead friends. Seeing how the events of the first film had effected her life so dramatically was like watching an old friend going through a really hard time. The closing twenty minutes literally had me on the edge of my seat as Laurie searches one dark room after another, the hunted becoming the hunter. You know Michael is there lurking somewhere, but where? The final image as a trapped Michael stares up at his escaping prey, so fixed on Laurie that he fails to even notice that he is being engulfed in flames really stuck with me after the credits rolled.
Now I'm not going as far as to say this film was perfect. Some of the humour fell a little flat and felt out of place and I hated the new Dr Loomis character and his plot twist. It felt crowbarred in and completely unnecessary. Had the rest of the film not been as tight it would have taken me out of the movie completely, but thankfully that was not the case. A lot of love and passion went into making this movie. Clearly the film makers are fans of the original and that really comes across on screen. It really honours Carpenters movie and evidently comes across as a love letter more than a cash in. I know this movie divided people. You either loved it or hated it and I am definitely in the camp of the former. Do I want another sequel? If the quality of this one is maintained then hell yeah. Halloween 2018 has taught me that allowing myself to get a little hyped now and again can sometimes be rewarding. Not everything has to be The Phantom Menace.