Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
13 years have passed since Alice first visited Wonderland. She was just a little girl back then. A mad, little girl plagued by a nightmare. Now, almost 20, Alice finds herself thrust headfirst into adulthood yet continues to have the same dream for as long as she can remember. On the verge of being thrown into a marriage she's unsure of, Alice finds herself easily distracted by the simplest things. What would it be like to fly? What if women wore trousers and men wore dresses? Or the fact that wearing a corset is similar to wearing a codfish on your head. The White Rabbit eventually distracts Alice long enough to lead her back down the rabbit hole for a return visit to Wonderland, but Alice is still under the impression that it's all a dream and has no recollection of her first trip there. Since Alice's first visit, however, the Red Queen used the Jabberwocky to relinquish the crown from her sister, the White Queen, and now reigns supreme as the queen of Wonderland. As the creatures of Wonderland debate whether this Alice is the "right Alice" that is destined to kill the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen's reign, Alice struggles with trying to wake up from this very realistic dream.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Writing (3 more)
No character development
Too many inconsistencies
Too many chapters
Errin Stowell's new novel series starts with Covet Not which is about a middle-aged lawyer named Sam Sparks - - - who is referred to as Sparks nearly the entire story - - - whose fiancee goes missing and he then becomes the prime suspect. Before everything happens though, readers see that Sparks spends his time trying to defend the elderly from home foreclosures as a small-time lawyer.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Duck Soup (1933) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
“You’re a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember, while you’re out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we’ll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are” Rufus T. Firefly
And the one liners just keep on coming…
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930’s, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the “The Marx Brothers”, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germany’s fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplin’s works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930’s, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the “The Marx Brothers”, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germany’s fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplin’s works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Death of Mrs Westaway in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Spooky & fun read
Things aren't going well for Hal, who has been struggling financially and emotionally since her mother passed away. So when she receives a letter stating that she's a beneficiary to a well-sized inheritance, she thinks it may be the answer to her prayers. She also quickly realizes that the letter was sent to the wrong person, but she hopes to use her abilities as a tarot-card reader to claim the money. Once at the funeral of her supposed "grandmother," Hal finds herself drawn to her fake new family, something she never had growing up. She also starts to feel like something is off about the supposed situation and the odd, imposing home where they are all residing.
This novel wasn't what I was expecting, but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a creepy, almost gothic book--not your typical whodunit--but more a slow-burning thriller in a Agatha Christie type style. The star of the show is Harriet, aka Hal, whom the book focuses on and who is our narrator for the majority of the novel. We get most of the story from her point of view, with the exception of excerpts of diary entries from the 1990s. Luckily Hal is an interesting character, even if she's in a bit of trouble, having borrowed money from some disreputable sources, and basically just being over her head since the death of her mom a few years ago. She's young and while it seems insane that she'd go off on this quest to claim an inheritance that isn't hers, you can sense and understand her desperation.
Once Hal arrives at Trespassen, the imposing yet decreipt mansion of the woman who is supposed to be her grandmother, the gothic style of the novel ratchets up, and it is really quite eerie at times. We get introduced to a trio of men who should be Hal's uncles, if she was who she claimed. The cast of characters is limited and the story isn't fast-paced, per se, but I found it quite compelling, as the reader, along with Hal, is trying to work out a variety of things. We realize that Hal does have ties to this family, but nothing is truly as it seems, and all is creepy and foreboding.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. It's a bit slow at times, but still quite interesting, and I enjoyed Hal's character. It's spooky and a fun read.
This novel wasn't what I was expecting, but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a creepy, almost gothic book--not your typical whodunit--but more a slow-burning thriller in a Agatha Christie type style. The star of the show is Harriet, aka Hal, whom the book focuses on and who is our narrator for the majority of the novel. We get most of the story from her point of view, with the exception of excerpts of diary entries from the 1990s. Luckily Hal is an interesting character, even if she's in a bit of trouble, having borrowed money from some disreputable sources, and basically just being over her head since the death of her mom a few years ago. She's young and while it seems insane that she'd go off on this quest to claim an inheritance that isn't hers, you can sense and understand her desperation.
Once Hal arrives at Trespassen, the imposing yet decreipt mansion of the woman who is supposed to be her grandmother, the gothic style of the novel ratchets up, and it is really quite eerie at times. We get introduced to a trio of men who should be Hal's uncles, if she was who she claimed. The cast of characters is limited and the story isn't fast-paced, per se, but I found it quite compelling, as the reader, along with Hal, is trying to work out a variety of things. We realize that Hal does have ties to this family, but nothing is truly as it seems, and all is creepy and foreboding.
Overall, I enjoyed this one. It's a bit slow at times, but still quite interesting, and I enjoyed Hal's character. It's spooky and a fun read.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Mother-in-Law in Books
May 21, 2019
Lucy was so excited to meet Diana, the mother of her boyfriend, Ollie. Lucy's mother died when she was a teen and she hoped for a good relationship with her hopeful mother-in-law. But Lucy and Diana don't get off to an easy start--Diana has a rigid set of views formed by her own life experiences. From simply co-existing to arguing about parenting to eventual fisticuffs, their relationship is volatile. Then, one night, Lucy and Ollie hear a knock on their door. The police arrive and tell them that Diana is dead in an apparent suicide. But as the investigation progresses, it looks as if there is more to the story. Everyone in the family has history with Diana; but did someone actually kill her?
"'Then I'm very sorry to inform you,' the policewoman starts, and I close my eyes because I already know what she is going to say. My mother-in-law is dead."
This was my first Sally Hepworth novel, and I have heard good things, so I was excited to read some of her work. I found it to be a fast read, with a set of engaging characters. The book alternates between Lucy and Diana's point of view, with much of the story being told in the past. I found the format to be very effective; it worked very well at drawing you into the story and keeping you guessing at what was going on. Many parts of the story were told twice, in some ways, as both women told their side of the story, yet it never felt repetitive.
The main characters in this one are Lucy and Diana, but we have strong appearances from Ollie, his sister Antoinette "Nettie, " and Tom, Diana's husband. I can see why people enjoy Hepworth's novels--I felt very much a part of the story, and I was certainly stumped along the way. Sometimes there was a little too much rumination about mother-in-laws and the meaning of families for my taste, but oh well. I was too eager to find out what had happened to Diana.
"More importantly, you don't choose your mother-in-law. The cackling mercenaries of fate determine it all."
Overall, I really enjoyed my first Hepworth book. It was a quick, engaging, and interesting read that kept my interest.
I received a copy of this novel from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"'Then I'm very sorry to inform you,' the policewoman starts, and I close my eyes because I already know what she is going to say. My mother-in-law is dead."
This was my first Sally Hepworth novel, and I have heard good things, so I was excited to read some of her work. I found it to be a fast read, with a set of engaging characters. The book alternates between Lucy and Diana's point of view, with much of the story being told in the past. I found the format to be very effective; it worked very well at drawing you into the story and keeping you guessing at what was going on. Many parts of the story were told twice, in some ways, as both women told their side of the story, yet it never felt repetitive.
The main characters in this one are Lucy and Diana, but we have strong appearances from Ollie, his sister Antoinette "Nettie, " and Tom, Diana's husband. I can see why people enjoy Hepworth's novels--I felt very much a part of the story, and I was certainly stumped along the way. Sometimes there was a little too much rumination about mother-in-laws and the meaning of families for my taste, but oh well. I was too eager to find out what had happened to Diana.
"More importantly, you don't choose your mother-in-law. The cackling mercenaries of fate determine it all."
Overall, I really enjoyed my first Hepworth book. It was a quick, engaging, and interesting read that kept my interest.
I received a copy of this novel from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Lead Me Home in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Lead Me Home by C.S. Savage instantly reminded me of The Blind by A.F. Brady, The Binding Song by Elodie Harper, and The Foster Child by Jenny Blackhurst all of which also feature an overworked NHS psychiatrist struggling to cope with their demanding roles, who end up going beyond the call of duty in order to protect the most vulnerable.
In this book, Dr Clancy Mclean has her suspicions about a couple of her psychotic patients. One of which, Beth, is convinced she is being stalked and her health is declining rapidly. Feeling forced to take it upon herself to protect Beth, Clancy irresponsibly brings Beth home to stay with her and her daughter, Rowan. Er, not allowed!
But teenager Rowan is having troubles of her own, in the form of an abusive ex-boyfriend who will not leave her alone. When she meets her new boyfriend, an older and more mature man, she is so smitten she decides to keep him a secret to prevent her mother interfering ~ at least until she gets to know him better. After all, she met him online. Her mother would never approve.
Would you?
The story is narrated by four characters. Clancy, her daughter Rowan, Beth who is one of Clancy’s patients and an unknown, deranged psycho, who shares his murderous plans in great (and very gruesome) detail.
Reading ‘Lead Me Home’ was like watching an episode of ‘The Wire in the Blood’, based on Val McDermid’s book of the same name ~ tense, gripping and oh, so horrific I could hardly breathe as I raced through to the end.
In fact, this is such a fast-paced, well-written, creepy read, it’s without a doubt one of my favourite psychological thriller’s this year. The psycho’s scenes totally freaked me out and I don’t think I’ve ever read a book quite as fast as this one!
When one person fell victim of the psycho, I felt absolutely, and emotionally, sucker-punched! Really, how could the author do that to me? Is this really C.S Savage’s debut novel, because I have to say I can hardly believe that is the case! I loved every minute of reading this. I’ll certainly be looking out for more by this author, and so should you!
Needless to say, I heartily recommend ‘Lead Me Home’, to other lovers of well-written crime fiction! Love creepy, psychological thrillers heavily steeped in horror? Then grab a copy of this book and prepare for a scare!
In this book, Dr Clancy Mclean has her suspicions about a couple of her psychotic patients. One of which, Beth, is convinced she is being stalked and her health is declining rapidly. Feeling forced to take it upon herself to protect Beth, Clancy irresponsibly brings Beth home to stay with her and her daughter, Rowan. Er, not allowed!
But teenager Rowan is having troubles of her own, in the form of an abusive ex-boyfriend who will not leave her alone. When she meets her new boyfriend, an older and more mature man, she is so smitten she decides to keep him a secret to prevent her mother interfering ~ at least until she gets to know him better. After all, she met him online. Her mother would never approve.
Would you?
The story is narrated by four characters. Clancy, her daughter Rowan, Beth who is one of Clancy’s patients and an unknown, deranged psycho, who shares his murderous plans in great (and very gruesome) detail.
Reading ‘Lead Me Home’ was like watching an episode of ‘The Wire in the Blood’, based on Val McDermid’s book of the same name ~ tense, gripping and oh, so horrific I could hardly breathe as I raced through to the end.
In fact, this is such a fast-paced, well-written, creepy read, it’s without a doubt one of my favourite psychological thriller’s this year. The psycho’s scenes totally freaked me out and I don’t think I’ve ever read a book quite as fast as this one!
When one person fell victim of the psycho, I felt absolutely, and emotionally, sucker-punched! Really, how could the author do that to me? Is this really C.S Savage’s debut novel, because I have to say I can hardly believe that is the case! I loved every minute of reading this. I’ll certainly be looking out for more by this author, and so should you!
Needless to say, I heartily recommend ‘Lead Me Home’, to other lovers of well-written crime fiction! Love creepy, psychological thrillers heavily steeped in horror? Then grab a copy of this book and prepare for a scare!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Coming Up For Air in Books
Jan 23, 2018
Quick, fun read
Maggie's entire life is swimming. Since she was a kid, her focus has been on the sport and hopefully qualifying for the Olympics one day. Her best friend, Levi, also swims, and the two spend most of their time together. As they enter their senior year, however, Maggie starts to realize how much of typical teen life she's missed out on because of swimming. In particular: relationships and being with a guy. So Maggie turns to Levi for help. After all, her best friend is well-versed in randomly hooking up with girls at swim meets, so she asks him to teach her to hook up. Maggie doesn't think anything will go wrong with this plan--and that the two can maintain their close friendship. But is that really the case? And can Maggie still focus on the most important year of her swimming career?
I've read a few other books in Kenneally's Hundred Oaks series and really enjoyed them: they are just fun, escapist YA novels. For me, this one wasn't quite up to the others I've read, though I enjoyed the second half more than the first. It took me a long time to get into the story and the characters. The "learn to hook up" premise for the plot was a shaky one, and I missed the main focus on sport and relationships than seem to be the hallmark of Kenneally's other novels. While this genre of book is often a bit predictable, the first half of this one was ridiculously so, and it was a little painful to read at times.
Luckily, I found the second half more in the usual Hundred Oaks style, and I did find myself getting into Maggie and Levi's story more. Maggie irritated me a bit from time to time, but she takes more control over her own life decisions in the second half of the story. I liked Levi a lot and the two's friendship. The second half also centers more on her competitive swimming career, which I enjoyed (the focus on different sports in this series is always a fun, added touch). You can't help but enjoy the romance aspect and get sucked in--it's just a strength of Kenneally's and she does it so well. Overall, while not my favorite of the Hundred Oaks novels, this was a cute book and a fun read, though not the usual quick escape that I was expecting.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
I've read a few other books in Kenneally's Hundred Oaks series and really enjoyed them: they are just fun, escapist YA novels. For me, this one wasn't quite up to the others I've read, though I enjoyed the second half more than the first. It took me a long time to get into the story and the characters. The "learn to hook up" premise for the plot was a shaky one, and I missed the main focus on sport and relationships than seem to be the hallmark of Kenneally's other novels. While this genre of book is often a bit predictable, the first half of this one was ridiculously so, and it was a little painful to read at times.
Luckily, I found the second half more in the usual Hundred Oaks style, and I did find myself getting into Maggie and Levi's story more. Maggie irritated me a bit from time to time, but she takes more control over her own life decisions in the second half of the story. I liked Levi a lot and the two's friendship. The second half also centers more on her competitive swimming career, which I enjoyed (the focus on different sports in this series is always a fun, added touch). You can't help but enjoy the romance aspect and get sucked in--it's just a strength of Kenneally's and she does it so well. Overall, while not my favorite of the Hundred Oaks novels, this was a cute book and a fun read, though not the usual quick escape that I was expecting.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley. More at http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Dana (24 KP) rated A Court of Thorns and Roses in Books
Mar 23, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
Oh my goodness.
I absolutely adored this book! I am a huge sucker for any kind of fairy tale retelling and this one did not disappoint!
Through about the first half of the book, I had this warm, floaty kind of feeling in my chest. The writing actually made me feel like I was in love (or what I assume it to feel like). The way the characters talked to each other and interacted just made me feel so good about this book.
Speaking of the characters, can I say well written? Because, wow! I felt really connected to the characters (especially Feyre's sassy-ness and care for her family). They were very well written and drawn out. I didn't feel like they were flattened or abused in any way, even when they were being beaten up on the pages. There was a great deal of respect that was shown to all of the characters in this book. I really enjoyed the strength that Maas gave to each of her characters. It was as if they had their own way to deal with their weaknesses and strengths. They felt so real! I think what helped with creating this reality was making some of the characters seem super awkward at times. I mean, everyone gets awkward, but the way it was done was to show how the characters really were, not necessarily how the narrator was seeing them.
The plot was amazingly paced. I didn't feel like I was waiting for something exciting to happen because it was always happening. Even down to the smallest of parts in this novel were exciting. But even then, it didn't feel too over the top in excitement. There was a great balance between pacing and excitement (I have said that word too many times in this review, but who cares!)
I didn't feel like there was much missing from this book except for more pages. I didn't want it to end!!
If I could, I would give this a higher rating than a 5 star because it was just that amazing!!
I recommend this to anyone who adores fairy tale retellings, fantasy, fairies, or just a damn good read. Honestly, if you haven't picked this book up, I really recommend that you do. I am kind of kicking myself for not picking up this book sooner!
******Also, spoiler-ish thing ahead:*******
*
*
*
*
*
*
I just want to know, did anyone else guess that riddle when they first read it, because I did. I started yelling and cheering at the end part when she figured it out!!
I absolutely adored this book! I am a huge sucker for any kind of fairy tale retelling and this one did not disappoint!
Through about the first half of the book, I had this warm, floaty kind of feeling in my chest. The writing actually made me feel like I was in love (or what I assume it to feel like). The way the characters talked to each other and interacted just made me feel so good about this book.
Speaking of the characters, can I say well written? Because, wow! I felt really connected to the characters (especially Feyre's sassy-ness and care for her family). They were very well written and drawn out. I didn't feel like they were flattened or abused in any way, even when they were being beaten up on the pages. There was a great deal of respect that was shown to all of the characters in this book. I really enjoyed the strength that Maas gave to each of her characters. It was as if they had their own way to deal with their weaknesses and strengths. They felt so real! I think what helped with creating this reality was making some of the characters seem super awkward at times. I mean, everyone gets awkward, but the way it was done was to show how the characters really were, not necessarily how the narrator was seeing them.
The plot was amazingly paced. I didn't feel like I was waiting for something exciting to happen because it was always happening. Even down to the smallest of parts in this novel were exciting. But even then, it didn't feel too over the top in excitement. There was a great balance between pacing and excitement (I have said that word too many times in this review, but who cares!)
I didn't feel like there was much missing from this book except for more pages. I didn't want it to end!!
If I could, I would give this a higher rating than a 5 star because it was just that amazing!!
I recommend this to anyone who adores fairy tale retellings, fantasy, fairies, or just a damn good read. Honestly, if you haven't picked this book up, I really recommend that you do. I am kind of kicking myself for not picking up this book sooner!
******Also, spoiler-ish thing ahead:*******
*
*
*
*
*
*
I just want to know, did anyone else guess that riddle when they first read it, because I did. I started yelling and cheering at the end part when she figured it out!!