Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Oct 12, 2020
Monae shines - the rest falls flat
One of the films that I circled on my calendar back in the beginning of 2020 was a trippy looking "Civil War anachronism" film (my term) ANTEBELLUM starring Janelle Monae. I'm a sucker for these kinds of films, so was a little sad that I couldn't see it in the theater, but was thrilled when this "horror film" debuted on pay-per-view in time for Halloween.
I now know why the producers of this film decided to get this out now vs. waiting to release it theatrically sometime in 2021.
Billed as "Jordan Peel's GET OUT meets an M. Night Shyamalan film", ANTEBELLUM is a movie told in 3 acts. In the first act, Janelle Monae's character (who is given the slave name Eden) is brought into a Southern, Antebellum, plantation. This part of the film shows the desperation and despair that slaves lived in at a time that they had no rights and were under the whims of their White Slave Owners. The character of Eden is fiesty and is constantly looking to escape, but...eventually...is worn down by her masters and capitulates...to a point. This is the most successful part of this film, but has been better covered in other films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE.
The 2nd part of this movie takes place in "modern day" and concerns a successful author, Veronica Henley (also played by Monae). This character specializes in books and motivational speeches designed to empower the African-American woman. This part of the movie highlights Monae's appeal as a screen presence and she overcomes some weak writing to rise above. This part of the film, ultimately, falls flat for me, but I was curious as to how these 2 very different pieces of this movie fit together.
The 3rd part of this movie answers that question. If only, it answered it better....for pieces of this part of the movie works well...but others fall very, very flat resulting, ultimately, in a less than satisfying film-going experience that could have used some further work.
Monae's performance (for the most part) shines in this movie. She handles both characters that she is playing in a sharp, charismatic way. I could really buy that she is a popular "motivational" speaker (in the modern part of the movie). I could also see the fire in her spirit during the "Antebellum" part. What I didn't buy (and a weakness in the script doesn't help this part) is her "capitulation" to her slave owners.
And...that's about if for performances that stood out. All of the white actors playing the slave owners (mainly Eric Lange, Jena Malone and Jack Huston) are capital "E" evil. While this is probably historically accurate, they weren't evil enough - or multi-dimensional enough - to keep my attention. Compounding that issue is that the other characters in the "modern part" of the film are very generic and forgettable.
And then we get to the 3rd part of this film - where the first 2 parts are melded together.
It is one of those types of storytelling tropes that either you "go with it" or you don't. If you don't, the movie will lose you right there. If you do (and I did), then it is an interesting place to go and blends the first 2 parts of the film "well enough". My problem is that I didn't care enough about the characters to care about what happens.
I lay the blame of this on filmmakers Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz. They co-wrote and co-directed this movie. I had never heard of them, or (I don't think) I've encountered their work before, but upon reading up on them, they are listed as "Visionary Filmmakers Bush+Renz". If they are visionaries, they sure didn't bring much vision here. It was all pretty straightforward and could have used some other kind of "visionary" to lift this movie to a higher level.
You know, like Jordan Peele or even M. Night Shyamalan.
Letter Grade C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I now know why the producers of this film decided to get this out now vs. waiting to release it theatrically sometime in 2021.
Billed as "Jordan Peel's GET OUT meets an M. Night Shyamalan film", ANTEBELLUM is a movie told in 3 acts. In the first act, Janelle Monae's character (who is given the slave name Eden) is brought into a Southern, Antebellum, plantation. This part of the film shows the desperation and despair that slaves lived in at a time that they had no rights and were under the whims of their White Slave Owners. The character of Eden is fiesty and is constantly looking to escape, but...eventually...is worn down by her masters and capitulates...to a point. This is the most successful part of this film, but has been better covered in other films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE.
The 2nd part of this movie takes place in "modern day" and concerns a successful author, Veronica Henley (also played by Monae). This character specializes in books and motivational speeches designed to empower the African-American woman. This part of the movie highlights Monae's appeal as a screen presence and she overcomes some weak writing to rise above. This part of the film, ultimately, falls flat for me, but I was curious as to how these 2 very different pieces of this movie fit together.
The 3rd part of this movie answers that question. If only, it answered it better....for pieces of this part of the movie works well...but others fall very, very flat resulting, ultimately, in a less than satisfying film-going experience that could have used some further work.
Monae's performance (for the most part) shines in this movie. She handles both characters that she is playing in a sharp, charismatic way. I could really buy that she is a popular "motivational" speaker (in the modern part of the movie). I could also see the fire in her spirit during the "Antebellum" part. What I didn't buy (and a weakness in the script doesn't help this part) is her "capitulation" to her slave owners.
And...that's about if for performances that stood out. All of the white actors playing the slave owners (mainly Eric Lange, Jena Malone and Jack Huston) are capital "E" evil. While this is probably historically accurate, they weren't evil enough - or multi-dimensional enough - to keep my attention. Compounding that issue is that the other characters in the "modern part" of the film are very generic and forgettable.
And then we get to the 3rd part of this film - where the first 2 parts are melded together.
It is one of those types of storytelling tropes that either you "go with it" or you don't. If you don't, the movie will lose you right there. If you do (and I did), then it is an interesting place to go and blends the first 2 parts of the film "well enough". My problem is that I didn't care enough about the characters to care about what happens.
I lay the blame of this on filmmakers Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz. They co-wrote and co-directed this movie. I had never heard of them, or (I don't think) I've encountered their work before, but upon reading up on them, they are listed as "Visionary Filmmakers Bush+Renz". If they are visionaries, they sure didn't bring much vision here. It was all pretty straightforward and could have used some other kind of "visionary" to lift this movie to a higher level.
You know, like Jordan Peele or even M. Night Shyamalan.
Letter Grade C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020
Not as bad as expected
Sonic the Hedgehog is a legend, a gaming institution, and adapting him for the big screen was always going to be a tall order. This was proved when the trailer for this 2020 release first dropped in 2019 - the original appearance of Sonic faced such outcry and derision that studio Paramount did the unexpected and completely overhauled Sonic's looks. The result in the final film released in February of this year is a character that looks very much like the Sonic we know and love, but in a storyline and film that is sadly rather lacking.
Sonic the Hedgehog was directed by Jeff Fowler and stars James Marsden and Jim Carrey as the humans, with Ben Schwartz voicing the animated Sonic. The plot unfortunately is the entirely predictable buddy story you'd expect when a CGI character gets thrown into the real world - Sonic befriends a human, experiences all the fun earth has to offer before being hunted by an evil villain, and at the end everyone learns the value of friendship. So far, so generic and for me this was the biggest disappointment about this entire film. The script, the plot, the animation, it was all just so average.
Having seen the surprisingly good Detective Pikachu the previous year, which managed to seamlessly blend the real world with animated characters in a better than average story, I'd hoped Sonic would follow in the same vein but I'm sad to say it didn't. Yes Sonic looks a million times better than he did initially (the teeth in the original version are the stuff of nightmares), but he still looks too animated and cartoonish for the real world. The Pokémon in Warner Bros' film looked real, but Sonic just looks out of place. He isn't helped with Ben Schwartz's rather unconvincing voice which feels ill-fitting too, personally I think they should've done a Pikachu and Ryan Reynolds and gone with a completely outlandish OTT voice. It's a shame as the rest of the scenery and action based CGI are actually quite good, although the slow motion scenes have been done before and so much better (X-Men: Days of Future Past).
To be fair, despite a sometimes dodgy script, the human cast do at least do their best. James Marsden has surprisingly good chemistry with an animated hedgehog, although it's Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik that steals the show. Whilst his Robotnik isn't quite the rounded Eggman of the games, Carrey's performance is wonderfully wacky, sinister and completely over the top, and is responsible for virtually all of the laughs here. He's having an absolute whale of a time and this really draws us in as viewers and makes us have fun too. He's the Carrey we know from the 90s, his performance so akin to those of Ace Ventura and The Mask that you can't help but love the exaggerated show he gives here.
Paramount has also done a good job of including some nostalgic nods to the games, from the gold rings in the opening Paramount logo to Sonic's red sneakers. Even the final battle between Sonic and Robotnik had me squealing with joy at how much it reminded me of the actions you undertake to defeat the boss battles. There are some aspects of the games that are missing, most noticeably the Badniks (Robotnik's creature like robots) and Sonic's friends, who have sadly been left for a blatant sequel baiting end credits scene for a sequel we may never see. I also found Robotnik's machines and vehicles to be a little too technologically advanced and was disappointed not to see some that were more reminiscent of the wacky contraptions from the games.
This adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog isn't the best, and to be frank it could have been done so much better. That said, it still held my attention for its 100min run time and could never be called dull, even if it was a little too puerile to be anything better than average.
Sonic the Hedgehog was directed by Jeff Fowler and stars James Marsden and Jim Carrey as the humans, with Ben Schwartz voicing the animated Sonic. The plot unfortunately is the entirely predictable buddy story you'd expect when a CGI character gets thrown into the real world - Sonic befriends a human, experiences all the fun earth has to offer before being hunted by an evil villain, and at the end everyone learns the value of friendship. So far, so generic and for me this was the biggest disappointment about this entire film. The script, the plot, the animation, it was all just so average.
Having seen the surprisingly good Detective Pikachu the previous year, which managed to seamlessly blend the real world with animated characters in a better than average story, I'd hoped Sonic would follow in the same vein but I'm sad to say it didn't. Yes Sonic looks a million times better than he did initially (the teeth in the original version are the stuff of nightmares), but he still looks too animated and cartoonish for the real world. The Pokémon in Warner Bros' film looked real, but Sonic just looks out of place. He isn't helped with Ben Schwartz's rather unconvincing voice which feels ill-fitting too, personally I think they should've done a Pikachu and Ryan Reynolds and gone with a completely outlandish OTT voice. It's a shame as the rest of the scenery and action based CGI are actually quite good, although the slow motion scenes have been done before and so much better (X-Men: Days of Future Past).
To be fair, despite a sometimes dodgy script, the human cast do at least do their best. James Marsden has surprisingly good chemistry with an animated hedgehog, although it's Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik that steals the show. Whilst his Robotnik isn't quite the rounded Eggman of the games, Carrey's performance is wonderfully wacky, sinister and completely over the top, and is responsible for virtually all of the laughs here. He's having an absolute whale of a time and this really draws us in as viewers and makes us have fun too. He's the Carrey we know from the 90s, his performance so akin to those of Ace Ventura and The Mask that you can't help but love the exaggerated show he gives here.
Paramount has also done a good job of including some nostalgic nods to the games, from the gold rings in the opening Paramount logo to Sonic's red sneakers. Even the final battle between Sonic and Robotnik had me squealing with joy at how much it reminded me of the actions you undertake to defeat the boss battles. There are some aspects of the games that are missing, most noticeably the Badniks (Robotnik's creature like robots) and Sonic's friends, who have sadly been left for a blatant sequel baiting end credits scene for a sequel we may never see. I also found Robotnik's machines and vehicles to be a little too technologically advanced and was disappointed not to see some that were more reminiscent of the wacky contraptions from the games.
This adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog isn't the best, and to be frank it could have been done so much better. That said, it still held my attention for its 100min run time and could never be called dull, even if it was a little too puerile to be anything better than average.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Nothing Tastes as Good in Books
Jun 24, 2019
I happened to see this book by chance, in my local library. I was drawn to it because it's cover, it's title - I'm anorexic, and I happen to be drawn to things relating to mental health. It doesn't expressly say on it that it's about anorexia, but the cover made it pretty obvious to me. A warning to anyone that wants to read it: it's hard. If you suffer from something like this, like me, then you will probably have difficulty reading something so close to home. Especially if you're recovering. But it gets better. (I mean the book; I'm not using that "life gets better" crap.)
So Annabel is dead. I'm studying The Lovely Bones at school so the whole beyond-death narration isn't that special to me now. But Hennessy does it pretty differently to Sebold.
We don't know much about Annabel, not at first. But we begin to learn about her while she helps her assigned "soul-in-need" - The Boss (definitely not God) has promised her a final communication with her family if she helps Julia. And this looks easy, at first - Julia is from Annabel's old school, with a loving family and good grades. Everything is fine, except she's fat. Annabel thinks this should be easy - after all, she's an expert in weight loss. She lost weight until she died.
But Annabel soon finds out that Julia's issues are a whole lot more complex than her weight. At first, losing weight helps. But then her old scars come back to haunt her, and Annabel realises that maybe losing weight isn't going to fix all her problems.
Aside from the obvious issue, this book does talk about a lot of important topics. It covers friendships and relationships, like most YA novels do, but it also combats ideas on feminism, affairs with older men, and people all having their own hidden demons.
At first, I wasn't keen on Annabel. I wanted to like her - I felt I should, because I could relate to her story so much. But she was a bitch. She wanted other people to be like her, and rather than encouraging recovery and health and happiness, she shared tipped on weight loss. It really did hurt to read. Her ideas on "perfection" and being weak for eating just really hit a nerve for me. Not because it was wrong (though I'd never encourage an eating disorder in someone else), but because it's exactly how I'd think about myself. Her behaviours, her worries, her anger - they were so real.
But Annabel, despite being dead, grows alongside Julia. Yes, she tells Julia to starve herself and run on an empty stomach and hate herself, but eventually she starts to feel for her. She wants Julia to combat her issues, to actually be happy. And she realises, despite having been so upset with her old friends for recovering, that maybe she wasted her life. Maybe she could have been something more, rather than striving to be less.
I found this really emotional. Annabel's love for her sister, the sister she neglected for years while she was focused on her goals, and the future she cut short. The way Julia's life changed when her passion for writing and journalism was overtaken by her obsession with food, calories, exercise. It's so real and so sad. And the ending isn't "happily ever after" - Annabel's still dead, Julia's in counselling - but it's real. It gives hope that things can change, that Julia can really achieve happiness.
At first, I didn't like this that much. I know Annabel is just a character, but I just didn't like her. She was one of those girls that makes anorexia sound like a choice, a lifestyle, and I hated that. But later she realises she is sick, and I actually felt sorry for her. I was sorry that she had been brainwashed by her illness into believing she was doing what was right.
The only reason I'm giving just 4.5 stars to this book is because Annabel was a bitch. Yes, she is a character, and yes, she grows considerably throughout the novel, but her encouragement of EDs just drove me insane. Personal pet peeve, I guess.
So Annabel is dead. I'm studying The Lovely Bones at school so the whole beyond-death narration isn't that special to me now. But Hennessy does it pretty differently to Sebold.
We don't know much about Annabel, not at first. But we begin to learn about her while she helps her assigned "soul-in-need" - The Boss (definitely not God) has promised her a final communication with her family if she helps Julia. And this looks easy, at first - Julia is from Annabel's old school, with a loving family and good grades. Everything is fine, except she's fat. Annabel thinks this should be easy - after all, she's an expert in weight loss. She lost weight until she died.
But Annabel soon finds out that Julia's issues are a whole lot more complex than her weight. At first, losing weight helps. But then her old scars come back to haunt her, and Annabel realises that maybe losing weight isn't going to fix all her problems.
Aside from the obvious issue, this book does talk about a lot of important topics. It covers friendships and relationships, like most YA novels do, but it also combats ideas on feminism, affairs with older men, and people all having their own hidden demons.
At first, I wasn't keen on Annabel. I wanted to like her - I felt I should, because I could relate to her story so much. But she was a bitch. She wanted other people to be like her, and rather than encouraging recovery and health and happiness, she shared tipped on weight loss. It really did hurt to read. Her ideas on "perfection" and being weak for eating just really hit a nerve for me. Not because it was wrong (though I'd never encourage an eating disorder in someone else), but because it's exactly how I'd think about myself. Her behaviours, her worries, her anger - they were so real.
But Annabel, despite being dead, grows alongside Julia. Yes, she tells Julia to starve herself and run on an empty stomach and hate herself, but eventually she starts to feel for her. She wants Julia to combat her issues, to actually be happy. And she realises, despite having been so upset with her old friends for recovering, that maybe she wasted her life. Maybe she could have been something more, rather than striving to be less.
I found this really emotional. Annabel's love for her sister, the sister she neglected for years while she was focused on her goals, and the future she cut short. The way Julia's life changed when her passion for writing and journalism was overtaken by her obsession with food, calories, exercise. It's so real and so sad. And the ending isn't "happily ever after" - Annabel's still dead, Julia's in counselling - but it's real. It gives hope that things can change, that Julia can really achieve happiness.
At first, I didn't like this that much. I know Annabel is just a character, but I just didn't like her. She was one of those girls that makes anorexia sound like a choice, a lifestyle, and I hated that. But later she realises she is sick, and I actually felt sorry for her. I was sorry that she had been brainwashed by her illness into believing she was doing what was right.
The only reason I'm giving just 4.5 stars to this book is because Annabel was a bitch. Yes, she is a character, and yes, she grows considerably throughout the novel, but her encouragement of EDs just drove me insane. Personal pet peeve, I guess.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Home Alone (1990) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It's not Christmas until Kevin says "I've made my family disappear." In fact, it's probably one of the few that I actively watch every year, and it's one of two that I'll happily watch at any time of the year. (The other being Die Hard... don't get on my case, you know it's a Christmas film.)
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
Debbiereadsbook (1475 KP) rated Forged Redemption (Tribal Spirits #5) in Books
Oct 2, 2019
a stunning conclusion!
I was gifted my copy of this book, direct from the author, that I write a review was not required. But when the previous four books in the series have ALL been 5 stars, it’s only right and proper that you round off the WHOLE series, with a 5th FIVE star review!
I strongly and highly recommend; find it absolutely NECESSARY that you read the other books first, and in order. The ongoing story arc that runs through them all comes to a head here and you NEED to know what has happened before. What this group of people have suffered before at the hands of a madman.
Drew is trying to redeem himself, even though the things he did weren’t under his own steam. Joining forces with the Red River and the Silver Springs packs to rid the world of his nemesis, Drew knows he faces the final battle. But at least he has his Ally-Cat at his side, and if he dies today, she knows he loves her. Ally suffered when Drew left to join the Landsliders, in more ways than one and now, no one will want her, damaged as she is. Drew though? He might, if they survive this last fight.
When Drew turned up with Lucas, right near the beginning, you knew, you just KNEW he had a tale to tell and that it wasn’t going to be pleasant. And it certainly isn’t! Far darker than I was expecting, with so many twists and turns, I had to concentrate to keep up! Trust me when I say, this is a good thing: when a book makes ME slow down my reading, because I must keep up, it’s a very good thing. Ally’s tale is equally hard reading, just in a different way.
We knew Drew turned Landslider, that much is clear from the previous books, but WHY he did, isn’t so clear. When you hear what his father did, and then Hendricks made Drew do, you wonder how the man is still standing, the weight of his guilt is massive. Ally doesn’t sugar coat his feelings, she doesn’t try to make him feel any better. She carries her own (misplaced) guilt and that’s enough for her. What Ally DOES do, though, is make Drew HOPE. She makes him hope there is an end to their nightmare. She makes him hope there will be a happy ending, for the others at least. And deep down, deep within that part of him that never really let Ally go two years ago, she makes him HOPE there will a place for him in her heart, even after all he did.
It’s difficult reading, watching Ally and Drew come together again, especially when Drew comes across a particularly nasty reminder of something he did, and Ally suffered because of it. But it also BEAUTIFUL reading, when they finally, FINALLY give in to the true feelings, and just be together, the way they are supposed to be, as mates.
The end, for Hendricks, when it comes is long and heavy on the fighting, but I really think it is needed here. You need to know how Drew and Ally are feeling as they close in on Hendricks, and I would have loved to have heard from him, as his end draws nigh, I really would. Some clue to his feelings is given, but I’m just greedy!
All the previous pairings show up, Sierra and Dex (Forged Alliances) Finn and Navi (Forged Decisions) Raven and Jer (Forged Contracts) and Lana and Lucas (Forged Futures) and I am so pleased they did!
Just why I didn’t pick up that Dex was Drew’s brother before this book, I have no idea!
It’s always sad when a series comes to an end, but this one goes out with a huge bang!
Thank you, Ms McIntyre, for bringing these people into my world. I shall miss them!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I strongly and highly recommend; find it absolutely NECESSARY that you read the other books first, and in order. The ongoing story arc that runs through them all comes to a head here and you NEED to know what has happened before. What this group of people have suffered before at the hands of a madman.
Drew is trying to redeem himself, even though the things he did weren’t under his own steam. Joining forces with the Red River and the Silver Springs packs to rid the world of his nemesis, Drew knows he faces the final battle. But at least he has his Ally-Cat at his side, and if he dies today, she knows he loves her. Ally suffered when Drew left to join the Landsliders, in more ways than one and now, no one will want her, damaged as she is. Drew though? He might, if they survive this last fight.
When Drew turned up with Lucas, right near the beginning, you knew, you just KNEW he had a tale to tell and that it wasn’t going to be pleasant. And it certainly isn’t! Far darker than I was expecting, with so many twists and turns, I had to concentrate to keep up! Trust me when I say, this is a good thing: when a book makes ME slow down my reading, because I must keep up, it’s a very good thing. Ally’s tale is equally hard reading, just in a different way.
We knew Drew turned Landslider, that much is clear from the previous books, but WHY he did, isn’t so clear. When you hear what his father did, and then Hendricks made Drew do, you wonder how the man is still standing, the weight of his guilt is massive. Ally doesn’t sugar coat his feelings, she doesn’t try to make him feel any better. She carries her own (misplaced) guilt and that’s enough for her. What Ally DOES do, though, is make Drew HOPE. She makes him hope there is an end to their nightmare. She makes him hope there will be a happy ending, for the others at least. And deep down, deep within that part of him that never really let Ally go two years ago, she makes him HOPE there will a place for him in her heart, even after all he did.
It’s difficult reading, watching Ally and Drew come together again, especially when Drew comes across a particularly nasty reminder of something he did, and Ally suffered because of it. But it also BEAUTIFUL reading, when they finally, FINALLY give in to the true feelings, and just be together, the way they are supposed to be, as mates.
The end, for Hendricks, when it comes is long and heavy on the fighting, but I really think it is needed here. You need to know how Drew and Ally are feeling as they close in on Hendricks, and I would have loved to have heard from him, as his end draws nigh, I really would. Some clue to his feelings is given, but I’m just greedy!
All the previous pairings show up, Sierra and Dex (Forged Alliances) Finn and Navi (Forged Decisions) Raven and Jer (Forged Contracts) and Lana and Lucas (Forged Futures) and I am so pleased they did!
Just why I didn’t pick up that Dex was Drew’s brother before this book, I have no idea!
It’s always sad when a series comes to an end, but this one goes out with a huge bang!
Thank you, Ms McIntyre, for bringing these people into my world. I shall miss them!
5 stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
The premise of Jojo Rabbit is a bold one, and something that could have very easily been executed terribly on-screen.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
7 Cups - Online Therapy for Anxiety and Depression
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
Feeling worried, sad, stressed or lonely? Need to talk to someone? Download 7 Cups now for FREE...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Before I Let Go in Books
Jan 5, 2018
Easy to read (1 more)
Honest portrayal of mental illness
Lacks full character development (1 more)
Difficult to discern full point
Quick read that falls a little short
When Corey gets the call that her best friend, Kyra, has passed away--falling under the ice in their frigid hometown of Lost Creek, Alaska--she is devastated. Corey has been gone from Lost, as it's known, away at boarding school, corresponding with Kyra only via letters. She was due to visit in a few days and now her best friend is gone. Lost always shunned Kyra because she was bipolar and had maniac episodes. The small, insulated town couldn't understand Kyra's highs and lows. She stood out too much in a place where being different was wrong. But the seven months that Corey's been away has been long enough for the town of Lost to turn on her and now deem her an outsider. Since Corey's departure, Lost has suddenly embraced Kyra, though Corey isn't sure why. Even worse, they are calling Kyra's death meant to be, her time. They've rallied around in her death and they want nothing to do with Corey. Kyra always said she would wait for Corey to return: why didn't she?
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. It's billed as a YA mystery, and I can see its drama appealing more to teens, perhaps, but I could never really fully tell what the book was truly about or what it was trying to be. It has weird unexplained mystical elements thrown in--think Carol Goodman or Jennifer McMahon, but they aren't fully fleshed out or well-explained. I believe the intent is to slowly build up suspense and creep you out, but they don't slowly build up (they sort of start out full force and stay there, or almost trickle away... it's hard to explain) and they never really seem to have a purpose. So it's just one element of the book that leaves you hanging. The ending, too, leaves you with little closure.
The novel is told mainly from Corey's perspective, but we also get weird snippets told as if in a play format (like we're hearing from the town), but those aren't fully formed either. It's very strange. I liked Corey, but she comes in angry at her town and we don't get a lot of explanation into her character or real background into her friendship with Kyra, despite being assured that they were best friends up until Corey left.
It's sad, because I was really drawn to the character of Kyra (you get flashbacks to the girls' friendship and life before Kyra's death). I thought the book did a fairly good job of portraying mental illness and honestly Kyra--despite her death--seemed to be the most fully formed character in many ways. She implores Corey not to fix her, that she's not a puzzle to solve, and she discusses her manic spells in a very mature and very thoughtful way. It's one of the reasons that I'm keeping a three-star rating for this one; I'm hoping the portrayal of her illness can help and inform others.
There are also a variety of relationships portrayed in the novel--albeit, I thought, rather superficially--lesbian, pansexual, asexual, gay, etc. I wouldn't say any relationship is at all fully delved into, but I appreciate that Nijkamp at least wanted to try to be representative with her characters.
The other thing is that Nijkamp's books are just so darn easy to read. I remember that about This Is Where It Ends, too. I read almost this entire novel in one setting. Her writing draws you in so easily, even if you don't always agree with what you're reading, or if you wish for more character development. You could pick this up and fly through it in a day.
In the end, this certainly wasn't what I expected. The strange mystical elements seemed out of place and they, along with most of the characters, weren't really fleshed out. I was a fan of how easy the story was to read and the mental illness portrayal, though, as well as how easy the story was to read. I was drawn to the character of Kyra and wished I could have learned even more about her. The story was compelling and Nijkamp did an excellent job making you feel the cold of the Alaskan setting and the similar coldness of the townspeople. At the same time, while I could certainly see a small town being incredibly close-minded (and they were), some of the other plot points seemed a little overboard. A quick read, especially for teens.
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. It's billed as a YA mystery, and I can see its drama appealing more to teens, perhaps, but I could never really fully tell what the book was truly about or what it was trying to be. It has weird unexplained mystical elements thrown in--think Carol Goodman or Jennifer McMahon, but they aren't fully fleshed out or well-explained. I believe the intent is to slowly build up suspense and creep you out, but they don't slowly build up (they sort of start out full force and stay there, or almost trickle away... it's hard to explain) and they never really seem to have a purpose. So it's just one element of the book that leaves you hanging. The ending, too, leaves you with little closure.
The novel is told mainly from Corey's perspective, but we also get weird snippets told as if in a play format (like we're hearing from the town), but those aren't fully formed either. It's very strange. I liked Corey, but she comes in angry at her town and we don't get a lot of explanation into her character or real background into her friendship with Kyra, despite being assured that they were best friends up until Corey left.
It's sad, because I was really drawn to the character of Kyra (you get flashbacks to the girls' friendship and life before Kyra's death). I thought the book did a fairly good job of portraying mental illness and honestly Kyra--despite her death--seemed to be the most fully formed character in many ways. She implores Corey not to fix her, that she's not a puzzle to solve, and she discusses her manic spells in a very mature and very thoughtful way. It's one of the reasons that I'm keeping a three-star rating for this one; I'm hoping the portrayal of her illness can help and inform others.
There are also a variety of relationships portrayed in the novel--albeit, I thought, rather superficially--lesbian, pansexual, asexual, gay, etc. I wouldn't say any relationship is at all fully delved into, but I appreciate that Nijkamp at least wanted to try to be representative with her characters.
The other thing is that Nijkamp's books are just so darn easy to read. I remember that about This Is Where It Ends, too. I read almost this entire novel in one setting. Her writing draws you in so easily, even if you don't always agree with what you're reading, or if you wish for more character development. You could pick this up and fly through it in a day.
In the end, this certainly wasn't what I expected. The strange mystical elements seemed out of place and they, along with most of the characters, weren't really fleshed out. I was a fan of how easy the story was to read and the mental illness portrayal, though, as well as how easy the story was to read. I was drawn to the character of Kyra and wished I could have learned even more about her. The story was compelling and Nijkamp did an excellent job making you feel the cold of the Alaskan setting and the similar coldness of the townspeople. At the same time, while I could certainly see a small town being incredibly close-minded (and they were), some of the other plot points seemed a little overboard. A quick read, especially for teens.