Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Happiest Season (2020) in Movies
Jan 4, 2021
Happiest Season definitely makes a refreshing change for a mainstream Christmas movie, but it's a real shame it didn't make it to the big screen.
Abby and Harper are having the most wonderful Christmassy evening, and in the throws of the moment Harper invites Abby to Christmas with her family. There's just one problem though, her family don't know she's gay, and they think Abby is her roommate. Can they survive the holiday season without causing a scene?
As with any festive fodder, there is an element of predictability around it that I think helps with the comforting feeling of it all, and I don't find that an issue in these sorts of things. It's that reassurance that makes them enjoyable.
That being said...
There are a lot of things I found to be frustrating about this film. Maybe it's my relationship history playing a part in it, but there were many points that had me screaming at the screen... let's just look at the rest of it though.
Family drama, classic dynamic, and all the individual characters have a little something mad about them... but that has success in varying degrees for me. Dan Levy as John is horrendously underused, there's even a perfect opportunity to have him in another storyline (that I actually thought we were heading to) but they didn't take it. I found Sloane to be way too far into the bitchy side of the character, and that made her rather unbelievable, and again, there were things in her character that would have been fitting that didn't get included. And those two kids... spawn of Satan, they'll murder us in our sleep.
Kristen Stewart is very good in this, and I'm notoriously not a great fan of her roles. (Though her offerings have been getting progressively better.) I do feel like Abby was done wrong in this film and I would have preferred to see some different outcomes for her... but every situation felt natural and her interactions with Riley and John were high points throughout. Where I come unstuck a little is with Mackenzie Davis and Harper, partly a dislike for the character and partly Davis' style of acting, it just didn't hit the spot for me. I can't say who I could have seen in this role instead, but I think there are a few others that could have taken up the reins and given it a little more pizzazz.
Gold stars all round for Mary Holland as Jane though, so adorable, she must be protected at all costs.
The look of the whole film is so rich and fits the season perfectly. The locations, the outfits, can't fault a single bit there. Design was flawless, I would love to live in that town if that's the aesthetic there. And if I'm being honest, there's nothing bad about this film overall, my issues are entirely personal preferences about acting and story.
Even with my desire to see a different outcome to the film... I cried. And yes, that's because it's a Christmas film and I'm an emotional wreck, that's how this season works, remember?
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/happiest-season-movie-review.html
Abby and Harper are having the most wonderful Christmassy evening, and in the throws of the moment Harper invites Abby to Christmas with her family. There's just one problem though, her family don't know she's gay, and they think Abby is her roommate. Can they survive the holiday season without causing a scene?
As with any festive fodder, there is an element of predictability around it that I think helps with the comforting feeling of it all, and I don't find that an issue in these sorts of things. It's that reassurance that makes them enjoyable.
That being said...
There are a lot of things I found to be frustrating about this film. Maybe it's my relationship history playing a part in it, but there were many points that had me screaming at the screen... let's just look at the rest of it though.
Family drama, classic dynamic, and all the individual characters have a little something mad about them... but that has success in varying degrees for me. Dan Levy as John is horrendously underused, there's even a perfect opportunity to have him in another storyline (that I actually thought we were heading to) but they didn't take it. I found Sloane to be way too far into the bitchy side of the character, and that made her rather unbelievable, and again, there were things in her character that would have been fitting that didn't get included. And those two kids... spawn of Satan, they'll murder us in our sleep.
Kristen Stewart is very good in this, and I'm notoriously not a great fan of her roles. (Though her offerings have been getting progressively better.) I do feel like Abby was done wrong in this film and I would have preferred to see some different outcomes for her... but every situation felt natural and her interactions with Riley and John were high points throughout. Where I come unstuck a little is with Mackenzie Davis and Harper, partly a dislike for the character and partly Davis' style of acting, it just didn't hit the spot for me. I can't say who I could have seen in this role instead, but I think there are a few others that could have taken up the reins and given it a little more pizzazz.
Gold stars all round for Mary Holland as Jane though, so adorable, she must be protected at all costs.
The look of the whole film is so rich and fits the season perfectly. The locations, the outfits, can't fault a single bit there. Design was flawless, I would love to live in that town if that's the aesthetic there. And if I'm being honest, there's nothing bad about this film overall, my issues are entirely personal preferences about acting and story.
Even with my desire to see a different outcome to the film... I cried. And yes, that's because it's a Christmas film and I'm an emotional wreck, that's how this season works, remember?
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/happiest-season-movie-review.html
Online-Translator.com photo and voice translation
Reference and Travel
App
Online translator, phrasebook, and dictionary for iPhone and iPad —right at your fingertips! New...
English Spanish Dictionary G.
Reference and Education
App
WORKS OFFLINE With over 718,000 entries, 524,000 translations, 558,000 synonyms, 98,000 definitions...
Flood Risk: The Holistic Perspective
Zoran Vojinovic and Jingmin Huang
Book
According to the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), over the last seventy years, floods have...
LDOCE Plus - Longman Dictionary + Activator
Reference and Entertainment
App
Support for iOS7 through iOS10! ● runs on your older devices too. More features than any other...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Amadeus (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Amadeus starts as an elderly Antonio Salieri (Abraham) admitting that he killed Mozart, leading to him getting taken to the insane asylum. Salieri recounts his story of his small town beginnings dreaming of being a composer and after a moment of fate he ends up in a position where he can learn music leading to him job as head conductor to the king of Austria. Mozart (Hulce) is the world renowned composer that has taken the notice of all around him with Salieri dreaming of one day being as good as Mozart.
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
We see how Mozart constantly ends up out shinning Salieri with his music leading to the rivalry between the two, with Salieri serious look on life and Mozart’s flamboyant style of just getting through each moment. Salieri moves into the position of being the connection to the Emperor to get his unique work out there but he is really just building him up for failure trying to break him down with criticize of his work.
REPORT THIS AD
Amadeus gives us a brilliant look at one of the greatest musical minds in the history of man. We know the basic idea of what happened to him but now we get to see it through the eyes of one of his closest friends even if he is filled with envy for him. What starts as envy is filled with respect and seeing how a talented person can get used by all the people close to him which will drive him into his bad ways. Overall this really is a brilliant drama that is told in a way we can just enjoy.
Actor Review
F Murray Abraham: Antonio Salieri admits that he killed Mozart, but now he is confessing to how he believes he was responsible for the death from inside an insane asylum. We watch how he got his dreams of working with music and constantly found himself lacking the complete flair and natural ability of Mozart leading to jealous and planning to bring him down slowly. F Murray gives us a brilliant and well deserved Oscar winning performance in this role.seleir
Tom Hulce: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is the flamboyant and brilliant composer who lives life on the edge spending every penny he ever received for his work, he pushes the boundaries to what is accepted even if his work is loved. He gains inspiration from his personal stories which will gain him enemies from his own confident in the government. Tom gives a performance that could easily have won him an Oscar too.morzart
Elizabeth Berridge: Constanze Mozart is the wife of Wolfgang, she supports him in all the work he does but just wants him to actually get paid for the work so they can look after the family, even after she lives him she feels guilty. Elizabeth does a good job in this role.
Roy Dotrice: Leopold Mozart is the overbearing father who pushed Amadeus into this career path making him the puppet when he was younger as he was leading him to become the biggest name in music of his time. After his death we learn about the control he had over Amadeus. Roy is good in this supporting role.
Support Cast: Amadeus has a well performed supporting cast that each hold their own in the characters they are playing.
Director Review: Milos Forman – Milos gives us one of the best biographical films of all time.
Biographical: Amadeus shows the troubles of the great man and how it was his eventual downfall.
Music: Amadeus uses all the music of the great man and how it would have look on stage for the fans witnessing it all.
Settings: Amadeus recreates all the settings that would have been used during the time the film is set.
Suggestion: Amadeus is one that could have been watched by anyone to learn about a part of history. (Watch)
Best Part: The performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: If you are not a fan of classical music you will struggle.
Believability: Yes
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor, Director and Writing also nominated for a further 3.
Box Office: $51 Million
Budget: $18 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 40 Minutes
Tagline: Everything you’ve heard is true.
Trivia: When the movie won Best Picture at The 57th Annual Academy Awards (1985), Sir Laurence Olivier was presenting the award. He went up to the podium, opened the envelope and said “Amadeus.” The problem was he forgot to read the nominees first.
Overall: Brilliant drama about one of the greatest musicians of all time
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/06/amadeus-1984/
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Sunsett Song in Books
May 14, 2017
there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ I
Sunset Song by Lewis Grassic Gibbon, published in 1932 became the ‘cream of the crop’ in a poll organised by The Scottish Book Trust last year. Not only was it voted as Scotland’s favourite novel, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described it as ‘timeless’ in an interview with the BBC, ‘ it said something about the history of the country I grew up in and it resonated with me very strongly as a young Scottish woman.’ I have to say that I am in agreement with the First Minister. Sunset Song is a beautifully written aesthetic novel that follows the life and internal conflict of the protagonist Chris Guthrie. By presenting Chris as a kind of cultural double, Gibbon is showing the reader the problems that result in Chris’s separation from the community and her parents conflicting interests regarding her upbringing. Chris’ father, hoping to enhance his daughter’s natural intelligence, is aware of the negative impact that the community might have on her progression, ‘Stick to your lessons and let’s see you make a name for yourself, you’ve no time for friends.’ John Guthrie, a progressive man, regards Chris’s peers as ‘servant queans.’ Whilst this may read as a cultural attack on the lower classes, John Guthrie, is simply reacting to his own working class conditions as a farmer. His motivation is to raise Chris out of the environment that he himself has struggled in and to give her better opportunities. Chris refers to her intelligent self as ‘English’ and identifies a cultural otherness between herself and those of her community. Chris’ mother Jean, on the other hand, has a view of the world that is from a much older time. Before marriage she was a free spirit, ‘there are better things than your books or studies or loving or bedding, there’s the countryside your own […] in the days when you’re neither bairn nor woman.’ It was Gibbon’s intention to create a heteroglossic view of education between Chris’ parents in order to create a protagonist whose future is a conflict between progression and an older unstructured way of life. It is through Chris’s thoughts, however, that her true self can be found. Her English self forms an escape, a place that is simpler, refined and an improvement on how she perceives Scottish culture as a result of her class, ‘the furrows went criss and cross, you wanted this and you wanted that, books and the fineness of them no more than empty gabble sometimes, and then sharn and the snapping that sickened you and drove you back to books.’ It is clear that Gibbon wanted to show the reader that Scottish culture does evaporate with progression. Culture lives in all of us, in the people, the land and in the struggles that we have faced and will face in the future. Chris Guthrie is the perfect example of hope, for a future which is rich in learning while still embracing her Scottish roots, I guess a future we can all identify with.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Vacation (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Family holidays will never be the same
It was 1983 when Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo made the infamous decision to take their family across the US to “America’s Favourite Family Fun Park” in National Lampoon’s Vacation.
Being the best in the long-running series, it seemed natural for it to receive a fully-fledged sequel of some kind, but it has taken up until now to get the balance right, but does Vacation evoke memories of that brilliant road-trip comedy?
Ed Helms takes on the role of an adult Rusty Griswold as he, like his father makes the epic trip to Walley World theme park alongside his long-suffering wife Debbie (Christina Applegate) and his two sons James and Kevin, played by Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins respectively.
Everybody’s favourite thunder-god, Chris Hemsworth makes a rather revealing cameo as Rusty’s brother-in-law and ladies’ man, Stone Crandall, and helps lift Vacation out of what could have been a half-way lull.
Naturally, there are many tasteful references to its predecessor but this isn’t just a lesson in comedy history. Writers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley inject some much-needed modern humour into the film – this is most definitely a movie from the 21st Century.
Ed Helms and Christina Applegate have real chemistry as the married couple but it is in their children that most of the laughs are. James and Kevin are the stereotypical, bickering siblings but like everything in Vacation they are turned up to eleven.
From raw sewage infested hot springs to a would-be maniac truck driver, the gags on the whole hit the spot every single time – by no means an easy feat when writing a comedy over 90 minutes in length. There are a couple of ill-placed laughs like a Four Corners police brawl that threaten to stop the film in its tracks, but thankfully these are few and far between.
Short but sweet cameos for Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo towards the climax anchor Vacation to what came before it and it’s nice that the writers didn’t forget to honour those roots in more ways than sickly nostalgia.
The direction is also positively inspired. Acting like a tourist brochure for the USA, Vacation makes you feel like you’re part of the vast locations. From desolate highways to bustling cities, it’s all here and beautifully shot.
Unfortunately the plot seems to run a little out of steam towards the end. After all, there’s only so much déjà vu a story can take and it seems that the writers put all their best work in the first two thirds of the movie, as is the case with many films in the genre.
Nevertheless, Vacation is a confident film that knows exactly what it’s trying to be. Acting as a standalone comedy for newcomers and a decent sequel for fans of the original, it has something for everyone.
The acting is sublime and the casting choices are spot on, only a lacklustre final third pull it back from the edge of glory.
I probably won’t be planning that road trip any time soon.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/23/family-holidays-will-never-be-the-same-vacation-review/
Being the best in the long-running series, it seemed natural for it to receive a fully-fledged sequel of some kind, but it has taken up until now to get the balance right, but does Vacation evoke memories of that brilliant road-trip comedy?
Ed Helms takes on the role of an adult Rusty Griswold as he, like his father makes the epic trip to Walley World theme park alongside his long-suffering wife Debbie (Christina Applegate) and his two sons James and Kevin, played by Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins respectively.
Everybody’s favourite thunder-god, Chris Hemsworth makes a rather revealing cameo as Rusty’s brother-in-law and ladies’ man, Stone Crandall, and helps lift Vacation out of what could have been a half-way lull.
Naturally, there are many tasteful references to its predecessor but this isn’t just a lesson in comedy history. Writers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley inject some much-needed modern humour into the film – this is most definitely a movie from the 21st Century.
Ed Helms and Christina Applegate have real chemistry as the married couple but it is in their children that most of the laughs are. James and Kevin are the stereotypical, bickering siblings but like everything in Vacation they are turned up to eleven.
From raw sewage infested hot springs to a would-be maniac truck driver, the gags on the whole hit the spot every single time – by no means an easy feat when writing a comedy over 90 minutes in length. There are a couple of ill-placed laughs like a Four Corners police brawl that threaten to stop the film in its tracks, but thankfully these are few and far between.
Short but sweet cameos for Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo towards the climax anchor Vacation to what came before it and it’s nice that the writers didn’t forget to honour those roots in more ways than sickly nostalgia.
The direction is also positively inspired. Acting like a tourist brochure for the USA, Vacation makes you feel like you’re part of the vast locations. From desolate highways to bustling cities, it’s all here and beautifully shot.
Unfortunately the plot seems to run a little out of steam towards the end. After all, there’s only so much déjà vu a story can take and it seems that the writers put all their best work in the first two thirds of the movie, as is the case with many films in the genre.
Nevertheless, Vacation is a confident film that knows exactly what it’s trying to be. Acting as a standalone comedy for newcomers and a decent sequel for fans of the original, it has something for everyone.
The acting is sublime and the casting choices are spot on, only a lacklustre final third pull it back from the edge of glory.
I probably won’t be planning that road trip any time soon.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/23/family-holidays-will-never-be-the-same-vacation-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Vanished in Books
Mar 18, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
In Vanished by Gillian Alice Lock time travel is not a scientific discovery but a natural phenomenon. This book also falls in a gray area between science fiction, historical fiction, and romance.
Andrea lives with her little dog, Muff, out in the country. She tries to live a structured life but since she works from home she finds herself giving in to cravings more often. Luckily Muff is extremely high energy for a little dog and requires Andrea to take her for long walks. One day Andrea makes plans with the neighbor guy for a date after Muff’s walk. The neighbor waits for her but she doesn't show up, for years.
During their walk Andrea and Muff finds themselves pulled into a dense yellow mist and when it dissipates things have changed. The area they are in looks familiar yet it is not the home they are used to, but instead, it looks more like pictures from a history book. Andrea draws a lot of attention to herself from the way she talks and dresses and soon finds herself with Father Jones. Through the Father, Andrea learns of Robert who also seems to have come from the future. Andrea manages to secure work along with room and board for herself and Robert at the home of William Farthing, a Lord. Sadly Andrea knows of the fate that is going to befall William and wars with herself about intervening. She also must come up with a decision if she wishes to return to her old life in the 21st century or try to keep her new one int the 17th.
I enjoyed how both positive and negative aspects of the 17th century are addressed. The dirty and poor living conditions are clearly depicted, as are the differences in food compared to what we are used to today. The lifestyle of those in the 17th century is very different from modern times but slower and calmer as well. There was inconsistency with the names of the characters in a few places. At times it was as if the reader is expected to recognize the name of a character that is only mentioned once. I can only guess that this is in error. The back of the book also says that it takes place in 2015 but in the actual story it is (to start out with) 2019. Without going into a lot of details as to why the wedding is also in the wrong year.
There is nothing in this book the I noticed that would make it inappropriate in any way. The topic and writing style might make it quite a bit boring for even middle school-aged readers. Those who like historical fiction and romance will probably enjoy this book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. Besides the inconsistencies and other issues, I mentioned earlier the book also had multiple typos and grammar errors. While I myself am not good in that area of writing the errors in this book were glaringly obvious even to me. The book needs to be closely edited and this seriously lowered the score.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Andrea lives with her little dog, Muff, out in the country. She tries to live a structured life but since she works from home she finds herself giving in to cravings more often. Luckily Muff is extremely high energy for a little dog and requires Andrea to take her for long walks. One day Andrea makes plans with the neighbor guy for a date after Muff’s walk. The neighbor waits for her but she doesn't show up, for years.
During their walk Andrea and Muff finds themselves pulled into a dense yellow mist and when it dissipates things have changed. The area they are in looks familiar yet it is not the home they are used to, but instead, it looks more like pictures from a history book. Andrea draws a lot of attention to herself from the way she talks and dresses and soon finds herself with Father Jones. Through the Father, Andrea learns of Robert who also seems to have come from the future. Andrea manages to secure work along with room and board for herself and Robert at the home of William Farthing, a Lord. Sadly Andrea knows of the fate that is going to befall William and wars with herself about intervening. She also must come up with a decision if she wishes to return to her old life in the 21st century or try to keep her new one int the 17th.
I enjoyed how both positive and negative aspects of the 17th century are addressed. The dirty and poor living conditions are clearly depicted, as are the differences in food compared to what we are used to today. The lifestyle of those in the 17th century is very different from modern times but slower and calmer as well. There was inconsistency with the names of the characters in a few places. At times it was as if the reader is expected to recognize the name of a character that is only mentioned once. I can only guess that this is in error. The back of the book also says that it takes place in 2015 but in the actual story it is (to start out with) 2019. Without going into a lot of details as to why the wedding is also in the wrong year.
There is nothing in this book the I noticed that would make it inappropriate in any way. The topic and writing style might make it quite a bit boring for even middle school-aged readers. Those who like historical fiction and romance will probably enjoy this book. I rate this book 2 out of 4. Besides the inconsistencies and other issues, I mentioned earlier the book also had multiple typos and grammar errors. While I myself am not good in that area of writing the errors in this book were glaringly obvious even to me. The book needs to be closely edited and this seriously lowered the score.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews/
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/