#the whole thing just felt very out of character for bridget

[mylifesjustacarousel]

me at that shuffle of love short

[bobbydagen24]

another thing I think it'd be nice to see in the future is more Branch and Viva Bonding given everything they have in common.

TBT obviously had that one scene where Branch tried to relate over their shared fears which devolved into a Joke about Pants which I don't think makes any sense given Trolls culture of being cool with full on public nudity.

and actually it literally only just occurred to me but were JD Bruce and Clay not actually the least bit curious what Branch was talking about?

at that point they didn't know about when their Grandma died and Branch just suddenly starts talking about being a recluse for years on end and they didn't have any questions?

instead all they cared about was the "" Awkward "" implication that he didn't wear pants in his home for years the Brothers really do seem like very incurious people tbh.

but anyway Random Rant aside it'd be nice to see more Branch and Viva Bonding in the future I sorta do like to think maybe they'd even have so much to relate over.

that Poppy might get a tad Jealous and feel left out given her different experiences.

like I can easily see Branch and Viva light heartedly bonding over some of the crazy ways they prepared for Bergen attacks and maybe just remembering what life was like in the Tree prior to the escape.

plus her maybe still feeling uncomfortable around the Bergens like Bridget and Gristle which I'm sure Branch would understand and try to help her through.

since they both spent years living in fear of their species so I imagine it didn't just go away overnight even after finding out they made peace with them.

and Branch would maybe admit he felt the same for a short while even after the peace was made.

Heck they can even Bond over being separated from their families for many years and somewhat feeling like the ode ones out in said families.

due to Viva being apart from Poppy and Peppy for so long and Branch being so young that there's a whole lifetime of experiences the Brothers shared with each other before he was even Born.

and due to being so young when they left that he doesn't have as much of an established past with them as they do with each other making it harder to Bond in present day.

yeah there's a lot these two characters could Relate over it'd be interesting to see.

[neroushalvaus]

Your beloved Bridget Jones loving tumblrina just saw Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy!

My thoughts under the cut!

Some critics have been mean about Renée Zellweger's acting, and I am having them murdered as we speak. Why were you watching this movie if not to stare at her for two hours. She was absolutely radiant, there were so many close-up shots of her eyes just smiling, I was sold.

I'm so happy to see my husband (an egoistic playboy I had a crush on when I was 6) again

This movie avoided the mistake the last movie made when it desperately tried to update the franchise and ended up with Gangnam Style and jokes that aged before the movie was even done. The music and jokes were much less tied to this specific time. So props for that.

Me and my mom were the only two people who laughed when it was revealed that Mark was killed while doing humanitarian work in Sudan, thus sounding like the two most horrible people in the movie theatre.

The new boys were cute. However, if a romantic plot was necessary, I wish they would have picked one man and given the relationship proper development. Now Mr Wallaker and Roxter both felt kind of under-used, it was a pity. I would have especially wished for more scenes for Mr Wallaker and Billy, from the chat they had it was very clear they had an existing bond and I'm pretty sure that something was edited out that kind of messed up establishing it.

In general it felt like there were too many characters. Like they wanted to have the OGs and the 3rd movie characters and new characters, and some of them didn't really need to be there. I mean, I would get just shoehorning the classic characters in, and I wouldn't judge the movie for doing that, but the amount of new characters felt strange. There were some new characters that should have had more developement, but there was the new rival, and the new workmate, and the nanny, and Rebecca just popping in to scream at her kids in the beginning... In my opinion, both of the children and Mr Wallaker should have had that screentime.

The story was somewhat patchy and editing was strange at times. It felt hasty. Is there a secret four hour version somewhere? Release the Zellweger Cut.

I liked Daniel's character growth. He still feels like himself, but this movie made him a tiny bit more human. And being a dirty old man suits him, I'm glad he's living his truth. I love him.

I see Billy is not in Eton, nor do they sing Yellow Submarine in school. I guess Bridget and Mark decided to meet in the middle.

The joke about Roxter asking for a permission before kissing Bridget... It doesn't really work when we know for a fact Mark Darcy has at least once uttered the phrase "I'm terribly sorry, but I think I'm going to come" during sex. Also, literally the first time Mark said he'd like to kiss Bridget, he said "realized that I had forgotten to kiss you goodbye, do you mind?". Asking for consent is something Bridget Jones is very much used to.

The end to Bridget and Roxter's relationship wasn't done very well in my opinion. Roxter knew Bridget was older than him when they started dating, it was weird that it became a problem out of the blue. I'd get it if he had suddenly realized he doesn't want to be a stepdad yet, or that he wants biological children, or that Bridget is not over Mark. But now it just felt weird. Roxter pursued Bridget very actively, and made it very clear that he is indeed attracted to older women, how is her age a problem now? Also Bridget leaving him because of his age didn't do it for me, I wish she'd have left him because of the whole ghosting thing. You know, "I have two kids who have already lost their father, and they need stability. I can't be with someone whose reaction to problems is running away instead of talking things through." Also, it was weird that we never saw Roxter again, like why couldn't he attend the New Years party at the end?

However, Roxter's character deserves to be a part of the Bridget Jones canon because of That One Scene. I felt like this movie truly understood that a crucial part of Bridget Jones movies is the catharsis you get when good things happen to Bridget. Like, first we were set up to think maybe Bridget would be publicly embarrassed in a party because her boyfriend is a no-show, just like in the first movie with Daniel - but then her handsome, younger boyfriend shows up, saves the host's dog from a pool, rises from the pool with a wet white shirt, and kisses Bridget in front of everyone. Amazing. No notes.

Loved Bridget's styling! Her flat and frumpy hair is sooo back ❤

Did I mention Renée Zellweger was absolutely radiant in this film? Well she was. I met God, she was clumsy as fuck.

I think this movie handled grief very well. Bridget's grief felt very real to me, and Mark's appearances managed to feel very fresh and touching. Billy's song had me and my mom clutching each other weeping. It was good.

That stupid owl was bad tho. Why did it leave.

I loved the exploration of how you should talk about death to children, the clash between religious/spiritual exploration and strictly atheist view of death. I really liked that Mr Wallaker discovered a way of talking about it that was compliant with his view of the world but still helped him comfort Billy when Billy needed it.

I kind of kept thinking whether you could make a Bridget Jones movie that wasn't a romcom. Like there's so much to Bridget's character, I would have been interested in this movie even without the new boys. You don't have to find a new man to "live". It's fine. But, this was the story they set out to tell and as I said, I liked the new boys. And Daniel. My mom's HC is that Bridget kept them all because that's how many men it takes to make up for one Darcy.

Bridget could have had more embarrassing situations to be stuck in. We love our clumsy queen.

I liked seeing the OG gang. Glad that Tom finally got to kiss Daniel. Also, based on that reaction, if bisexual Daniel wasn't canon before...

So many nice nods to previous movies! One I think was 100% deliberate but that some people probably missed was when Bridget complimented Talitha's coverage of Chechnya. Isn't it terrible about Chechnya. Chechnyaa. Chech-nyaa.

Oh, oh, and Daniel being a cool uncle and teaching the kids how to make cocktails with dirty names? I liked that. Very good.

[remimibanana]

Episode 3 Thoughts!

I watched Episode 3, and I wanted to share my thoughts about it!

All under the cut!

THE LORE, THE LOREEEEEEEEEEEEE

I originally thought the beginning of the episode was a little too fast paced, but they managed to balance it out at the end (since it started off with El and Ram, then jumped to Jack-O’, then back to El and so on, it was a little too quick for my pleasure).

Miss Elphelt getting a lot of screen time in this episode and it should always be that way! I love her to piecesssssss!

We got to see the smallest glimpse of Dr Paradigm when El and Jack-O’ were calling and that made me very happy. Maybe we’ll see him make a comeback in the later episodes 🤔

(Also Testament, Delilah and Faust!!!)

I’m glad to see Frederick using his skills and making a radar for the electromagnetic pulses that Unika gives off without any hassle, of course he’d be the one to notice such a thing!

That crappy politician who hates Gears makes an appearance and I’m glad Frederick and Sin ditched him off. He’s totally the one who is the mole, taking control of the military to cause those riots and whatnot for his own whims.

When Sin and that politician shook hands, I feel like that had a bigger impact than it seemed. Perhaps it’s like Unika who could copy things from a touch, maybe this crappy guy can track Sin or something (then again I think I’m just reading into it too much LOL).

ELPHELT NOOOOOOOOO (she’s not dead guys, we never saw her body trust me). She was most likely saved by someone, or she managed to survive using her own powers (she is a Valentine after all!).

I can’t believe someone actually recognized Frederick as one of the Holy Order members back in the Crusades at that run down place. It makes me so happy that the lore is really considered in this anime, it’s the reason why I love Guilty Gear.

One thing I found interesting is the fact that Frederick explicitly stated that Sin is a Command Type Gear, same as Justice. I think this is the first time that it’s been said outright in any of the lore.

Sin character development is real!!!!

Although, was Frederick doing this on purpose? Does he feel that they need Sin’s full power as a Gear since both Ky and Dizzy have been sealed away?

It would make sense since he doesn’t have the Flame of Corruption anymore and cannot fight as a representative of Gears any longer. Sin is the only one left in all of this and despite how immature he is…he’s the best representative for both Humanity and Gears in this fight.

Illyria is always being targeted man, no matter what happens 😭

SIN WHY WOULD YOU TELL UNIKA THAT YOU’RE A GEAR, A SPECIAL ONE AT THAT 😭😭😭

That whole fight scene was incredible, the way the two interacted with one another…I think it might be one of the best fights so far in the anime. I really felt for both Sin and Unika, they’re both just kids at the end of the day trying their best.

When I saw Frederick take out a gun, I thought he was going to kill himself for a whole second (he had enough and decided to die) 😭

More importantly, it goes to show that that Frederick thinks about all scenarios and is always prepared. He’s so smart.

SIN COMMANDING THAT GEAR TO SAVE BOTH UNIKA AND HIMSELF WHEN THEY WERE FALLING OUT OF DESPERATION AAAAAAAAAA THERE’S THAT POWER HE INHERITED

The only time we’ve really seen it is back in Overture when Valentine corrupts Sin and makes him into her servant pretty much, and his power is practically uncapped thanks to her influence.

I like how Baiken, Johnny and Bridget just show up casually out of nowhere. I feel that’s how it is with Guilty Gear, people tend to just appear even in the worst situations to help out.

The post credit scene, we’re going to get some Bridget and Unika interactions!!! I think Bridget is a wonderful choice, as she’s been through a lot herself and should easily be able to connect with Unika.

I am SO SO ready for Episode 4…

[tulip-in-a-cup3]

Is the Romantic comedy is still relevant?

Like many, I have spent countless endless hours watching romantic comedies. At one point they were the only sort of film I consumed (a very dark period) and also one of the many sparks of my love of film. But as I grew, changed and discovered all sorts of different films I next to completely forgot all about rom-coms only really revisiting them when I feel the need to turn my brain off and watch pretty people do things on screen. But now when I do turn one on I can't help but but notice how painfully sexist and unproductive they can be.

The romantic comedy is a very popular offshoot of the classic comedy genre. Rom-coms have been around since the time of Shakespeare's A Midsummer's night dream. The romantic comedy focuses on the romantic relationship between two characters. The movie usually follows a fairly basic structure with the characters meeting, falling for each other, facing some sort of adversity, and ultimately having a happy ending with them together. That's not to say some don’t break out of this with 500 days of summer being a perfect example. This genre of film became increasingly popular particularly among women because it was one of the only times that women were at the forefront of a movie. They were also easy, quick, and incredibly cheap to make. Allowing them to make massive profits when it came to the box office. Although romcoms did see a significant decline during the late 2000s and early 2010s we have seen a steady increase in them since the rise of streaming platforms producing their movies. On these streaming platforms, romantic comedies have managed to find an audience but that poses the question: are romantic comedies still relevant today?

Most romantic comedies tend to all have main characters that are white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, skinny, and Neurotypical. The rom-con never really showed the range and forms love could take. Rom-coms also sprinkled in this lovely layer of misogynistic undertones. Films like How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days depict women as “emotional, irrational and clingy” and that all these behaviours do is drive a man away, men of course being the complete opposite of these behaviours. Bride wars also show women in questionable ways with the leads completely turning on each other simply because of a wedding venue. Reinforcing the stereotype that marriage is a woman’s number one endgame. Even my personal favourite Bridget Jones isn’t immune to the problems laced throughout rom-coms. Bridget acted like her very healthy 136lb made her disgustingly fat or the fact she felt her whole life was a failure due to her being SINGLE of all things. There are many more examples I don't wish to get into that show how Rom-coms treat women. But does this mean we need to throw them in the bin completely?

No of course not it was an unproductive question in the first place. rom-coms can be misogynistic, but they are also changing take for example movies like To All The Boys I've Loved Before which has an asian american protagonist or Crush on Disney Plus which has a lesbian lead and follows multiple lgbtq characters (although it did get next zero marketing and only me and like three other people know it about subject for another day). The rom-com is not the same anymore just like how the landscape of film has changed. People are demanding representation and slowly we are receiving it. The rom-com is also one of the only genres that is dominated by women and tearing it down and ripping into does in some regard play into the demonization of all things enjoyed by women. Rom-coms are still relevant because love is still relevant. We just need to see it done in a way that reflects the variety of love we have and doesn't reinforce outdated stereotypes about women OR men. Rom-coms bring a lot of joy and fun that cinema needs and branding them as not relevant is moving backwards.

[help-is-on-the-way]

Ive finally reread the Lemonade Mouth book and i have feelings. This may be long.

Ive watched the movie countless times since i was like 12, it has always been one of my favorite disney movies. I had their songs in my mp3 and at school i liked carrying my house keys around so i could pretend i was Wen in Turn Up The Music. Anyway. Ive always known it was a story adapted from a book. I remember buying it when i was like 16 after watching the movie for the bajillionth time. I never finished it. I remember the different POVs threw me off a bit and the language didnt make it any easier (english isnt my first language and the book has never been translated). My bookmarker said i made it to page 152. But i honestly did Not remember at all like 90% of the changes. So im like pretty sure i read it without Actually reading.

Anyway. Now im 24 and i rewatched the movie 3 nights in a row this week. And im way more well versed in english nowadays. So i decided to give the book another shot. Now, like i said, i have feelings. I read the whole thing in 2 nights. Im not sure what im doing right now and im sure im overexplaining things, as i usually do. But well. I think i wanna say some stuff.

First of all, after reading the book i can confidently say the movie is a pretty amazing adaptation. Ive always known that, but like, now i have undisputable proof. The way they made the story flow in just under 2 hours always baffled me. They got like 7 character stories going on and it never feels too much. And the changes from the book are mostly all understandable, and some of them i even like way better in the movie in my opinion. I mean. Except their appearances changes. I love Bridget Mendler as much as the next guy, but .. Fat Olivia wouldve been so cool to see. Especially considering the movie/book themes.

I remember whenever i rewatched the movie as a 18 year old and onwards, i always thought something along the lines of. Wow. For a movie all about revolution, and being a freak, and not conforming to the social mold, and being a minority in an elitist society - the lack of queer related stuff is so Loud. I guess it always disappointed me. Not that we are necessarily freaks, but well. Im sure we all felt like it at some point. I remember being angry about it, then. But i get it. Of course i always did, in a way. It was 2011 and it was disney. And im not stupid either. Stella is a glaringly obvious lgbt subtext allegory - maybe its the Hayley Kyoko in her, but they all knew what they were doing, i think. I can see that. Its subtext. I just cant help it but feel a bit disappointed that it isnt text too. I kinda always secretly hoped the book had something more in this subject. Dont get me wrong. Stella's character in the book manages to be even more marvellous than in the movie (an impressive feat). I was in shock that she was written explicitly and diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD. Being a different but similar kind of neurodivergent myself, that was really cool and genuinely surprised me, as ive always related to the feeling dumb sentiments she has. But, you know. Still kinda made me sad. You could make the argument that she didnt need a romantic arc or whatever, cause she was going through a lot, blablabla. And, yeah. I agree with you. She was going through a lot. Thats kinda the point though. All five of them were. Its the whole point of their characters. Theyre all going through their own personal stuff and they got school problems on top of it - the band and their music is an answer to all of it. Im not saying she needed a girlfriend or anything. She didnt, and her character is one of the most fleshed out ones. I just cant help but wish.

Which then brings me to my next point. Honestly. I feel like the book had a lot more romance going on than the movie. In parts it was really sweet, and in others kind of annoying. The movie always made it very clear that Mo and Charlie wouldnt be a thing, and i come from that reality and mentality. So imagine my surprise when they are actually a thing by the end of the book. Idk. Ive always disliked Scott, and hated that he got in the band and played with them at the Madison Square Garden by the end. He never felt like one of the band, he never felt like a lemonade mouth. I dont think he ever really understood their struggles as freaks. At least not in my eyes. So he always felt a bit undeserving of his spot. He's there because of Mo, for Mo and Mo only. He's even more of an asshole in the book, so im glad hes not really brought up again after he tries to apologize and Mo says she isnt interested. I really like that this is what happens in the book. I might be too much of a Scott hater, but, yeah. I do like it. I dont think Mo shouldve gotten with Scott in the movie either. But i also dont think she shouldve gotten with Charlie, is the point. Sure, Charlie's character in the book actually puts in the effort to get to know Mo, he is sweet, he makes her feel listened to, and he tries to learn about her heritage and culture. He does not feel like hes in love with the idea of Mo (aside the first few POVs of him) (he quickly grows from that when they become proper friends). He loves her for her. And thats something i dont feel like it happens with movie-Charlie.

In fact, im gonna go in a bit of tangent here, i feel like movie-Charlie is the most not-book character of them all. Hes got the most background change, and most of the time he isnt seem doing much (most of his scenes were passed on to Wen - going with Stella to ask about the lemonade machine, being the one that's approached by Lyle when he sells the Lemonade Mouth Live at the Bash CDs, etc). When theyre deciding if they should become a band or not at the pizzaria, his coin flip in the book matters because thats heavily tied to his way of seeing the world and the universe. Tied to his belief that hes the wrong brother to have survived, so Aaron (heads) also deserves a chance to choose his actions for him, just as much as Charlie himself (tails) does. And thats explored time and time again over the pages. Its incredibly interesting and original. When they get rid of his dead twin brother, and build up a living-in-the-shadow-of-a-perfect-older-brother backstory for him, the coin flip just seems like hes an undecisive guy, who doesnt have a good reason to say No, but also not to say Yes either. And while thats fine, i guess... it just doesnt hold the same value narratively speaking. It just feels more shallow, like hes simply a more laid back guy - and although that is consistent, it just couldve been so much more. I do like movie-Charlie, but book-Charlie is way more interesting. His book appearance is more fitting too. Hes described as a regular chubby guy with unruly hair. I like that.

Anyway, back to the romance thing. Its fine i guess. Im mostly against Mo x Charlie in the book because it just kinda feels weird after watching the movie for 12 years. I liked the "friendzone" arc. Its nice when a boy and a girl can just be friends in media, no ulterior motives behind it (though that doesnt really happen between them either) (we see that more with Stella and the boys). Also because idk im not a huge fan of how Mo eventually came around and confessed to Charlie in the book. I know that theyre 14 but Charlie was still hurt by what she had said, and though she did apologize and admited that she screwed up, i feel like i wouldve liked it more if she explained to him what was going on through her head better. Like if she had explained to him what she had explained to the reader, that she was too preoccupied desesperately chasing after a future that doesnt belong to her, it kinda wouldve made it a lot better for me. Cause Charlie said multiple times that he was confused by the whole thing, and still hurt, but they kinda ignored that and kissed twice. And that was it, they were dating now. But then again, if they were able to express themselves that well, they wouldnt be 14 year olds.

And then on the other side of the romantic things going on theres Wen and Olivia. Ive always liked them as a couple since i was a kid. And their moments in the book were pretty fucking good. I love the subtle ways in which Wen slowly begins to pay more attention to her, and notice how his feelings toward her change, even though he doesnt really understand what they are. I lost my mind when in the beginning he described her eyes as a simple brown, but the next time it happens he sees that it has hints of yellow as well. And their fight scene ?!?!??!! Bro !!! The peak-ism of it all..... the way Wen crosses the street without Olivia, and theyre shouting while on different opposing sidewalks, with cars going between them, a clear and visual indication of this rift they suddenly found themselves in, and how sometimes they can think in opposite ways. Its so good. Hurts so well. And it gives more of a reason for Olivia to lose her voice as well, cause she had to yell over the noise and stuff. While in the movie she lost her voice over yelling two sentences while they were 2 meters away from each other, which always striked me as odd.

Speaking of which i feel like i have so much to say about Olivia, and at the same time so little. I honestly dont know which i prefer better, movie-Olivia or book-Olivia. From a poetic and creative standpoint, i really like that Olivia's POV throughout the book is told solely through her letters to her dad (+ Naomi at the end). Its very charming. But at the same time it also kinda feels like it hurts her characterization a bit in places. She tells stuff through a letter format to her dad, so at times it feels like she is withholding stuff while at the same time saying Much More than a 14 year old would say to their dad. And, granted, that does say a lot about her as a character, but you know. The point of different POVs is to explore the characters more. But because shes stuck telling the events to her dad, i dont feel like shes explored enough, it almost feels like shes only allowed to be his daughter - and it also feels forced at times when she tells stuff to him that i know just needs to be said for plot reasons. Which is a bit sad. I have the feeling that it is intentional, but idk. I feel like after 336 pages i still barely know her. We mostly get to know about her through other people - we basically only see Olivia [daughter] and Olivia [quiet friend]. I wanna see Olivia, dammit!!! It kinda sucks cause i love her and the book did not answer the questions i had about her. Shes the main singer, for goodness' sake !!!! And in the book nobody else sings besides her too.

This paragraph from one of Mo's POV kinda sums it all. Im stuck in a fence trying to understand if thats a good thing or not, when shes still a mystery even to the reader, only a 100 pages away from the end of the book. I want to know whats going on in her head so badly.

The exerpt kinda brings me to another point, slightly connected to the romance thing. The girls barely interact with each other. Of course we know they all become friends, and by the time the Halloween Bash is over and Nancy dies, Wen is already describing them all as a family in his POV. So we know they are all closer than they were before. From this point on they always describe themselves as friends, when before there was always an uncertainty over their relationship. But like, getting to my original point. The girls' interaction is scarce. Mo and Stella have the fight scene in the beginning, when the band first tried to make things work and they butted heads during practice. And then they get a descriptive paragraph soon after of the two of them having fun while reading a magazine and coloring the pictures with a pen after practice. After that, all of Mo's scenes are with Charlie, Naomi, or the other 4 as a band (or her dad). At the end Wen mentions that Mo gives him the "shovel talk" so he doesnt hurt Olivia by dating her. But we never get to see Mo and Olivia properly interacting one on one. The shovel talk isnt effective if i dont know the lengths that Mo would go for Olivia. I guess its fine narratively speaking, but like. I wanna see, you know. Olivia's scenes are even worse, theyre all either with Wen or the whole band. Olivia has more scenes with Sydney than with the other girls in her band. And its not just the girls, Wen and Charlie also never interact with each other. I feel like the focus in romance is greatly to blame for this. The movie lacks on this too, dont get me wrong. But its easier to convey their closeness to each other when there's a visual representation of them happening in front of my eyes and i can See them all interacting in between themselves without dialogue. Like Wen and Charlie singing the jingle of Rising Star together when they were in detention, or later on the two of them walking around school together. Or Mo hugging Olivia and standing close to her after Nancy died and More Than a Band happens. The whole More Than a Band scene actually, cause it kinda becomes a "silent" montage of them having fun together. Or having Wen with Stella when she realizes the actions of her consequences and suddenly the whole school knows shes the one responsible for cutting Mudslide Crush's set for the Bash in half. You know what i mean ?? As a big fan of found family i just kinda wish there was more of the rest of the relationships between the 5 of them. And in the book thats especially jarring. Which kinda goes back into the thing i said about Olivia's POV.

She wont write about these details to her dad. The only time she wrote in detail about a conversation was when she fought with Wen, cause she was venting about it to her dad. So we're kinda missing out on a POV that Could help bridge the band together in a way for the reader to see more clearly. Cause its obvious they love each other and theyre family, but we dont get to see much How exactly that happens. The cloud watching scene is like the main bonding moment in between the group and practically the only one we get to participate in. And it's not from Olivia's POV, it never is. Her cat died and we're told what happens through Wen's eyes. She has a "nervous attack" before the Halloween Bash to the point of puking and we're told what happens through Random Girl #6 That Just So Happens to Be Hiding and Eavesdropping in The Next Stall Over. She takes the band to see her dad in prison (a pretty big deal to everyone envolved) and, again, we're told through Wen's eyes. I wanna know what she was thinking !!!!! Cause its obvious it was hard for her to do that, and she had to prepare herself before even telling them where exactly they were going. What was going on through her head, then ?? Was she scared ?? Was she nervous ?? Was she thinking that maybe they wouldnt be her friends anymore because of it ????? We will never know, i can only assume stuff !!!!!!! And its really kinda frustrating. I wanna know for sure.

In the movie, Olivia's mom died when she was really young (young enough to not remember her face), and her dad "made bad decisions because of it". The way she talks about it makes it seem that immediately after her mom died, her father got into trouble with the law. So like her dad has been gone idk 12 years or something. She doesn't know him, doesn't know her mom. We're never told what exactly he did, and i kinda always got the impression that it was something bad, something that Olivia kinda resented him by, at least a little bit. I know she simply stated that she never wrote him back cause she didnt know what to say to him, cause he was basically a stranger to her. But you know. I feel thats enough to resent somebody, cause maybe she doesnt even know what he did either. If something like this happened in my family, i probably wouldnt know either. Not until i was like 22 and my aunt spilled the story while drunk during Christmas. The point is: its not the type of thing you tell a child - it's the type of thing the child quietly accepts as just a part of their normal life. So, at the end, she decides to give him a chance by writing a letter to him. I quite like that cause she was kinda doing the same thing that she fought Wen about. He never gave Sydney a chance, and she had never given her father a chance either. I like hypocrisy in characters cause it makes them complex. It makes the fight more interesting as well, cause otherwise its just suffering Olympics. And it hurts Olivia's character in my eyes cause thats really annoying and pointless. But interpreting it this way i can make more sense of it.

Book-Olivia, on the other hand. Her mother didn't die, she simply left. Olivia also does not remember her face. Her mom and dad had a teen pregnancy, the mom had drug problems and the dad already had minor criminal records. Mom left when she was 1. And her dad was a good father to her until she was 8. And she remembers that he was a good father. He had dreams of being an english teacher. And then he got fired from his taxi driving job, couldnt get another because of his past felonies, fell into old habits, and accidentally caused an old man to have a heart attack while attempting robbery with a toy gun. So he's in jail. And Olivia knows this stuff because she remembers. She was old enough to ask questions, to demand answers when her loving father suddenly wasn't coming home anymore. So she writes letters to him all the time, she keeps him updated on her life cause she knows he would like to be present, but can't. She also knows he made mistakes, and isnt looking for excuses for him. But he's a good father too. And she trusts him a lot. He's the person she trusts most in the world. So when she invites the band to visit him, she's trusting them as well.

Theyre similar backstories but also so different. Theres things i like about both. The Sydney-dad parallels in the movie are pretty good. Its what really sells it to me. The book's scene of the band visiting dad in prison is fantastic. I feel like the movie did a good job translating the book and adaptating Olivia's backstory. I quite like that the whole movie is Olivia's letter to her dad, telling him about her band. It's a pretty good way to tie her to her POVs from the book. ..I dont remember where i was going with this, honestly. I like Olivia. I may like movie-Olivia more just because, like i said, the hypocrisy makes her more complex. And book-Olivia is unfortunately a mystery i cant solve.

Mo's story is also pretty good in both. I feel like the only significant difference between book-Mo and movie-Mo is that Naomi's whole character is gone. So is her family owned store and the obvious religious references and practices, and Mo is seen doing less extracurriculars. So the illness she contracts before Rising Star in the movie feels less like a burn out and more like a really unfortunate coincidence - which lowkey sucks cause the burn out she feels is essential to Mo finally understanding that she cant keep overworking herself like this, which ultimately results into her coming to terms with the fact that she cant plan her whole future and expect it to not go wrong at some point. Cause that burned out Mo isnt the real Mo. Which then leads her to her confronting her dad. I understand why they cut Naomi out, but the fact that Mo had a pretty good friend before the band makes so much sense. She doesnt really struggle socially, its more that she has a family influenced plan for her future, and doesnt have time for other stuff (doesnt let herself have time for other stuff, especially after Scott). Mo in the book and in the movie do not feel like two different characters, it's more that the book has bonus content of the same girl. Its nice. Same thing with Stella and lowkey Wen, i think. And because of it i dont have much to say about Mo. Shes like Stella in the way that shes a very fleshed out character. Everything she does make sense. I highly recommend the book only for her POVs cause it touches her religion, faith and heritage in ways disney could never do cause theyre cowards. It really enriches her character. I love that even though she doesnt see eye to eye with her father, she still went and prayed with him. She doesn't hate her culture nor her religion. She values her family a lot and its especially telling in the book. I feel like thats a bit harder to see with movie-Mo.

Wen also feels like pretty much the same guy. In the movie they cut his pointless popular social hierarchy chase and replaced it with self absorbed jokes, which is important characterization nonetheless cause it tells the viewer that Wen isnt really insecure. In fact, id say he is very confident in himself. If he could, he wouldve named the band Wen. I dont think he is as confident in the book, but he also isnt trying to be someone he isnt, and you gotta be confident enough for that. He never tried to change who he is; he knows he is a weird guy but he thinks he still can be popular and That could work in his favor if he plays his cards right. But, through no fault of his own, he couldnt play them and thats why he fell so hard down the social hierarchy ladder. And he isnt happy about that. The Sydney situation in the book is a bit different from the movie, and way more awkward. Wen is described as being in love with her and the photographs he accidentally brought to school with him were Sydney's self portrait nude drawings. Its a very uncomfortable situation to everyone involved, including me that had to read and imagine it. I personally prefer the movie version of this cause it minimally touches Wen's problems with his mom leaving them behind and the impact it had on him. Sydney bothers movie-Wen so much because her presence is sudden, everywhere, and to him she's trying to replace something she could never be - his real mom. So he's angry and he lashes out. Thats way more interesting to me than having a teenage boy crush on your dad's 26 year old girlfriend. But i do like that he eventually realizes he grew out of it when Sydney starts treating him more "motherly" - fussing over his injury and offering him leftovers. It slightly-but-not-really touches the 'replacing his mom' role Sydney could have. Idk. Again, i like my characters when theyre more complex. Sure, the crushing on your dad's girlfriend brought him quite a lot of guilt, and that was a positive to me for his complexity's sake, but i feel like we already know so little about Wen's biological mom and how that affects him as is. Both in the movies and in the book, we're only told that she left them. Literally only that. I guess one could interpret it as she leaving them cause of a potential death, but i personally always saw it as abandonment. And something like that is ALWAYS gonna affect a child. At least movie-Wen touches a bit on how that affects Wen, and i like that.

Also wouldve it killed disney to give Wen his fucking glasses ?! Thats literally all thats different from his movie and book appearances and that kinda hurts a lil bit. Well, despite that Adam Hicks is kinda ginger and Wen is described as blond. But i dont think that matters much.

I guess to sum all this "character study" stuff up.

• Same character as in the movie but with bonus content: Mo and Stella.

• Movie has a different interpretation of the same character: Olivia.

• Movie and book got completely different characters they might as well have different names: Charlie. (and they do have different last names)

• Wen: Wen.

I do love the movie's songs cause theyre all a BANGER and i grew up listening to them. I just wish the book somehow had a CD built-in with their songs. Just so i could know what they sound like cause its REALLY hard to imagine. Especially cause the book gives us some song lyrics as well.

Anyway. Now to talk about the band itself. The book is interesting cause they all use unusual instruments: Stella plays an ukelele (she does know how to play electric guitar, but she ditches it for the sake of the band); Charlie's got a bunch of bongos and im-assuming-at-least-some-drum-plate-thingies; Wen plays the trumpet; Mo plays the big bass instrument that i forgot the name of; and Olivia sometimes plays an accordion + her voice. Olivia is also the only singer. I really like this cause its yet another reminder that those kids are weird. And thats CHARMING as hell !!! It kinda makes me sad that the movie didnt embrace these instruments cause im really fucking curious to how theyd sound together. Like, really, thats a big complaint of mine. Its such a weird mix of instruments that i really wish i could listen to them - its frustrating, even. I feel like that could change me as a person. Cause thats what so magical about them as a band. By all accounts they should not work well together, but they do somehow. Their instruments are a visual and soundful (?) (thats definitely not a word) representation of their weird friendship, its a reflection of it. Theyre all really different people but they somehow work well together. Theyre a family. And you cant separate them cause together theyre an unstoppable revolution.

One thing i really did Not like about the movie after having Book Hindsight, is the way the band reacts to Stella and the lemonade machine situation. In the movie it really feels sometimes that Stella is the only one that cares about that. Especially during the jail scene. I do love the Turn Up The Music callback but i HATE that they all blame Stella so blatantly and they never properly apologize. While in the book theyre ALL in this together, theyre fighting for what they believe in, and they never fault her for calling them and making them come to the school. Cause they all know its not just about the lemonade machine. Charlie does say in the book that "its just a stupid lemonade machine, Stella" but we know he doesnt really believe in that because of his thiughts. Its a half-hearted statement cause he might know its a lost cause but we Know he's worried as well, we know he doesnt mean it. But, at least to me, in the movie when they say stuff like that it really does feel like they dont care, sometimes. Especially when theyre in jail. And it kinda really fucking sucks. Its the main fucking theme of the book/movie !!!!!!! The lemonade machine matters cause it symbolyzes THEM !!!!! Its in their band name !!!!! And when they lose the machine they dont even feel like fighting for the band anymore !!!!!! Thats how much it bothers them that the machine is gone !!!!!

I think im gonna reread that part and rewatch the movie and come back to this actually. So i can judge and hate on this particular movie choice with more arguments.

[quetzalpapalotl]

So like love rivals, okay. You know the type, hyperfeminine alpha bitch that cares too much about her appearance (unlike the protag who is beautiful but doesn't care about it or doesn't care too much and is just feminine enough because god forbid we have an actually gnc woman as protagonist). My problem is that I watched Lizzie McGuire at a tender, very impressionable age and my favorite episodes where the ones that dealt with Lizzie and Kate's estranged friendship and gave the later some depth (they should kiss btw) it wasn't perfect but I was like 5 and it was something.

I do love a vain character, so this is an archetype I gravitate towards. And like I don't actually expect them to get rehabilitated every time, there are awful women who weaponize their femininity irl, it's a whole thing. But by god, the misogyny and double standards that usually surround these characters are uh, bad, really bad.

I watched Sugar Apple Fairy Tale (don't, its handling of slavery is not good), and naturally, my favorite character was Bridget bc she was far more interesting than anyone else. Like yeah, coercing Challe into being her slave is horrible, but there was something about the resentment she felt at her own gender-derived powerlessness and how she misdirected it at another woman because she gets to have what she doesn't and it isn't fair, and how she consoles herself by exerting power over the only person she can have power. You could really do something interesting with that and talk about systemic issues but instead she just kept being portrayed as spoiled and naive with barely any judgment passed on the people that put her into this situation. She's still portrayed with sympathy, but her potential is entirely wasted. And I cannot stress enough that as bad as her actions are, when the men around her take Challe away from her they still hold him hostage so Anne will be forced to help them. They do not see Challe as any more of a person than Brigett does and yet the narrative portrays them in a far better light.

In my perception manganime is more willing to throw this type of character as bone than in anglo media, which kinda make sense given than making friends with rivals in general shows up in all kinds of genres. Even so, it just doesn't feel like enough. Not to say that stuff that does right by this kind of character doesn't exist and I definitely need to check out more but you have to sit through so much

Which leads me to my point, which is that I would expect the villianess genre to be the perfect ground to explore this kind of character and the misogyny attached to it but it just... doesn't do that. Even when it'sa yuri. We get some stuff about how the villianess is misunderstood but that's kind of it??? And he worst ones just cast Someone Else (usually the original game protag) as The Bitch whixj is like... okay, there's no subversion here. You just wrote a typical romance plot. Like maybe it's because it's too focused on an hyperspecific character archetype that doesn't actually exist so it has nothing to build on, but aaaaah. There has to be one that does what I want, there has to.

Anyway, I'm only rambling and don't really have a point except that Princess Tutu is the best anime ever made and why am I looking for more stuff when Princess Tutu already exists.

[askauradonprep]

Rise of Red Liveblog Part 3

Oh, the Tremaines place does not look good. I wonder if they'll be around?

And yes they are and they are the worst.

I like that Red and Chloe connect over their moms sucking. Chloe is TRYING XD

Good question about rewards and being a good person but it depends a lot on how's, why's and contexts. I feel like a parent should be rewarding and encouraging that.

I like talking about how hard it is to be kind to people who are awful, but I'd also point out that that can easily go too far and lead to being a doormat.

I do like how Red sees how villains think.

Well, Chloe tried. You probably could've offered to pay for a new one.

Just putting out there - I'm like 99% sure Lady Tremaine stole Ella's inheritance too.

"VKs" existing before the Isle is so stupid.

I see having an awesome song is in Uma's family! <3

Yeah, Revenge is a bop.

I don't totally get why Ulyana isn't just Ursula but I like her so far.

Ahhh, bonding over saving each other. Works every time, just like true love's kiss.

Wow, Chloe just is coming for Red's whole life and innermost desires.

And yeah, okay, apparently it is a boarding school for some.

I love Bridget making her cards into a fan

Awwww, Bridget is so cute with Red here. But jeez, girl, LOOK IN THE GLASS.

Daaaaamn, Charming hurt my heart there.

"No troublemaker can get their hands on each other" - CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

I love how much Chloe loves her mom

And Red, hon, can I just point out you're the one who said what happened (granted, under duress).

I appreciate Ella's advice here. Although I'd point out selling dangerous potions to provide for your kids may be grey but it's a pretty damn dark grey. And I'm not a fan of 'bad people don't think they're bad' type rhetoric. Caring about being bad or good isn't always enough. You need to put thought and consideration for others into what you do and say. Sometimes we use thinking we're bad as an excuse to keep doing hurtful things. I know it's for kids and so it's a simplified lesson but shhhh, I'm having fun adding nuance to the nuance.

I have to admit, I don't really think this particular lesson is one Auradon needs to learn. Like ...Cinderella really hasn't had this talk with her before about Robin Hood or Aladdin or Eugene? Or even Queen Mal? I think this is a type of nuance that Auradon and Chloe should already be very familiar with.

See, Cinderella, it's well and good to talk about doing anything to save someone you love and in this case it's fitting, but....you can't ACTUALLY do 'anything' for someone you love and be justified. You can do a lot more harm to other people that way. We literally have a Star Wars trilogy about this where someone can't accept they might have to let go of something and it starts a totalitarian mess!

LMAO I love Red and Chloe.

DAMN now we know why people don't steal from Merlin's office.

XD I love the trap for Uly and her friends.

Heeeeelp Chloe and Red are so CUTE!

Pffft, oh Morgie!

I'm really not sure how this'll wrap up in only a few minutes.

....Huh. Well, that was abrupt. I don't know how I feel about it. It felt like something was missing between them leaving and going back. I'd have liked to see what happened with Bridget.

AH! Okay, I see. This is a set up for more and there is another shoe that will drop. I thought that was a little too neat of a way to end things. Okay, fair play pocket watch.

So! Overall, I liked it. It felt a little simplistic compared to the rest of the movies though and it definitely felt more....childish? Like, this definitely FELT more like a little kids movie than the others. I think the ending was rushed and that the songs, while I really like the music style, were more used to push along the narrative than to explore where the characters are at than the other movies. Red and Chloe are great and I love the Queen of Hearts, but I wish we'd gotten more of her. What can I say? Evil mom extraordinaire.

This is definitely a new writer and I'll be honest, I don't think this movie could have inspired Ask Auradon Prep the way the first and second one did. BUT I don't regret watching it and my curiosity is piqued enough that I am eager for a sequel!

That all being said - yeah. No. Unless they sort out this timeline really well, this is DEFINITELY an alternate timeline of the first three movies. As far as I'm concerned, the merge happened about 30 years ago, the Queen of Hearts and Red lived on the Isle until Red was 13 and there is no Merlin's Academy. These will be referred to as the Original Verse and the Merlin Verse. I will not be taking alternatives at this time.

[callofthxvoid]

Please welcome BEATRIX "TRIXIE" VOS (SHE/HER) to Huntsville, WV. They are a 32-year-old VISITOR who lives in TOWN. You may see them around working as a NURSE AT HUNTSVILLE HIGH. They are looking for FOX VOS, their BROTHER, and CHANDLER VOS, their SISTER. Poor unfortunate soul. We'll see if they survive.

quick facts

Title: The Flight Risk

Name: Beatrix Kendra Vos

Nickname: Trixie, Trix (by Lance), B (by Ven)

Date of Birth: November 22, 1991

Age: 32

Place of Birth: Definitely Somewhere

Hometown: Also A Place That Exists

Languages: English, Spanish

Faceclaim: Skyler Samuels

Pronouns: She/Her

Sexuality: Pansexual

Relationship Status: In a relationship with Lance Cerulli

personality

Myers-Briggs: ISFP - The Adventurer

Enneagram: Type Four - The Individualist (4w3)

Moral Alignment: Chaotic Good

Occupation: Nurse at Huntsville High

Role: Gatherer

[+] adventurous, generous, empathetic, patient [-] conflicted, inconstant, thrill-seeking, self-sabotaging

Character Inspirations: Dr. Emma K. Kurtzman (No Strings Attached), Elaine "Lainey" Dalton (Sleeping With Other People), Bridget Vreeland (The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants)

background

TW: Alcoholism, Parental Neglect

Born the second of three children to neglectful, alcoholic parents, Trixie has spent her whole life feeling torn between two sides of herself that seem impossible for her to reconcile with each other. On one hand, her early childhood was defined by being the careless, accident-prone little sister who always needed help from her big brother Fox, because she was always the one messing up. On the other hand, she simultaneously found herself stepping up to be the responsible, nurturing older sister to her little sister Chandler—especially after a blowup between their dad and Fox resulted in the former getting arrested and the latter being going into a second chance program.

At the time, Trixie was barely going into middle school, and her teenage years played out in much the same fashion. She had good grades, but she spent way more time in detention than any other honours student at her school did. She refused to drink or take drugs, but she was almost notoriously promiscuous, known for rarely (if ever) saying no to a hookup. After graduating, she attended community college to get an associate's degree in nursing, while she made a living getting paid under the table to work at a dive bar that was a popular concert venue for underground bands.

Trixie was on the precipice of having her life together when her older brother went missing during a job. At the time, she had just qualified as a nurse, was working her first job at a local hospital, and had been in a committed relationship since college. Her boyfriend was a nice, stable person from a nice, stable family, and while he was incredibly good to her, she always felt like there were things that she couldn't share with him—like she always had to hide her messy side, or the parts of her life that weren't as pretty. When he proposed, she had a small meltdown about the whole thing, freaked out and turned him down, and has not been in a serious relationship since.

Life carried on, and she continued working as a nurse while making friends from all walks of life. Among them was Lance Cerulli, whom she met while directing him to an AA meeting after he was admitted to the hospital she was working at; so when he told her that he was going to Huntsville for a fresh start, and she realised that was the same area that Fox had gone missing in, she had no qualms about deciding to accompany him on the road. And yet, despite having now spent two years in a place where her old problems hardly seem to matter, Trixie finds herself stuck in the same dilemma she has always been in—torn between the part of herself that wants to grow up and settle down and the one that recoils at the very thought of doing anything like that.

misc

She classifies herself as straight edge and has xXx tattooed on her left wrist. She also has two other tattoos - the first is her siblings' birth dates in roman numerals on her ribs and the second is a stylised lance going up the back of her right ankle.

She is an avid runner. She will figuratively and literally run from her problems.

[leomlarson]

LEO LARSON

full name: leonard "leo" michael larson

pronouns & gender: he/him, cis man

birthday & birthplace: february 9, 1996 (29); ann arbor, mi

location: ocean crest apartments

time in aurora bay: since august 2019

sexuality: bisexual

occupation: art teacher at aurora bay high school

@aurorabayaesthetic

about.

leo is a midwestern boy through and through. he was born and raised in ann arbor, michigan (go blue!) and really prides himself on that. he'll go to bat for the midwest any day.

he's the oldest of three, with two younger sisters who he'd literally die for. his extended family on his mom's side is incredibly tight; his mom and all of her siblings actually bought up a lot of the houses in the same little cul-de-sac, so leo grew up seeing his cousins more like his siblings. lots of game day barbecues that spilled out into the street, riding bikes around town, driving around because there was nothing else to do, the whole suburban experience really

his parents split up when he was nine and he has little to no contact with his dad, who moved across the country after the divorce. he loves his mom but she went through a long period of dating bad guys that hasn't really ended, so he definitely has daddy issues

he's loved art for as long as he can remember, and he was always gifted with it. it started with chalk drawings in the driveway and went from there. he went to a progressive, hippy dippy high school in ann arbor that allowed him to specialize and get together a portfolio for college

leo is. not smart lmao. but he is talented, which is what got him into a joint brown university/rhode island school of design program. doing the whole ivy league thing was really not leo's jam. he felt like he was too far from his family and had a hard time fitting in to the kind of upper class vibe at an ivy, but he was able to find his niche and really focus on his work because of it.

after college, a fellowship brought him out to san francisco. he loved sf, but the kind of snobbery that really repulsed him in college just came out in full force when he was trying to break into the art world. the fellowship was supposed to last two years, but he gave it up after one and packed up his whole life to move south to aurora bay

he's been in town for four years now, and during that time he worked on teaching certifications, sort of because he didn't know exactly what else to do. all he wants to do all day is paint, but he developed such an imposter syndrome on top of a distaste for the established art world, so he figured that teaching art would allow him to do what he loves everyday while also giving him a lot of time to work on his own projects

he got a job at aurora bay high school and lives to project the kind of cool, gay, tattooed hippie teacher vibe that his teachers in high school had. he still does his own stuff and shows at local galleries/maintains a website where he sells pieces. he also does murals all over town, in storefronts, on the sides of businesses, for anyone who wants one at affordable prices. he sells handmade jewelry at local artisan markets. he just loves to make art!

leo is a very simple guy. the only things that really get through into his brain are pretty things. flowers, trinkets, etc. his apartment is immaculately designed, he's always looking out for a cute new piece for his mantel.

family.

mother: bridget larson

father: michael larson (estranged)

sisters: daisy larson, emmy larson

tidbits.

he has a dilute tortoiseshell cat named robert, after robert rauschenberg, who he mostly just calls bob

he actually speaks fluent irish but hardly ever has a chance to use it. his mom is a first generation american and her parents were basically irish nationalists who only came to the states because they were so poor in ireland. they were all about keeping the irish language alive, so his whole family spoke irish growing up

he's a bit of a slut! he is ACTIVE on grindr and tinder and all the things. if your character is too, they've probably hooked up

basically, he's just a sunshiny pretty boy

connections

party buds, hopeless wingman case for @heyits-asher

intrigued by, highkey crushin on @paxton-brady

art friends w/ @cherryxkoch, @maura-cortes, @cassidyxcooke

internet turned irl art friends w/ @lennonhansley

past fwb/on weird terms with @dancingdanvers

neighbors who leo drags into impromptu board game/wine/craft nights @emersonxcassidy, @cricketcampbell

went on a few dates with @atticus-cortes before they both accidentally ghosted each other

ex hookup/helped @esmaxdemirci cheat on her husband in sf

friend/former camper of @caleb-majhi

[ashereadsstuff]

'Gwen & Art Are Not in Love' By: Lex Croucher

I received an ARC from Wednesday Books Through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

Rating out of 5: 🌟🌟(2/5)

Release Date: November 28, 2023

Content Warnings: Violence, Death of parent, War, Homophobia, Blood, Alcoholism, Vomit, Child abuse

✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫

SYNOPSIS:

Heartstopper meets A Knight’s Tale in this queer medieval rom-com YA debut about love, friendship, and being brave enough to change the course of history.

It’s been hundreds of years since King Arthur’s reign. His descendant, Arthur, a future Lord and general gadabout, has been betrothed to Gwendoline, the quick-witted, short-tempered princess of England, since birth. The only thing they can agree on is that they despise each other.

They’re forced to spend the summer together at Camelot in the run-up to their nuptials, and within 24 hours, Gwen has discovered Arthur kissing a boy, and Arthur has gone digging for Gwen's childhood diary and found confessions about her crush on the kingdom's only lady knight, Bridget Leclair.

Realizing they might make better allies than enemies, Gwen and Art make a reluctant pact to cover for each other, and as things heat up at the annual royal tournament, Gwen is swept off her feet by her knight, and Arthur takes an interest in Gwen's royal brother. Lex Croucher's Gwen & Art Are Not in Love is chock full of sword-fighting, found family, and romantic shenanigans destined to make readers fall in love.

✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫━✫

MY REVIEW:

As soon as I started the book, I was surprised that there was no formatting whatsoever for the chapter starting pages. If you are giving an ARC for review, the book needs to have some form of formatting. Readers, no matter who they are and at what point they are reading the book, should judge the book as a whole. They judge the art, the formatting, and the many POVs that are not labeled—literally everything. So it's not been a great start so far.

I have been reading ARCs for a while now, and my main pet peeve is unlabeled multi-points of view. I don’t care if it's two POVs or seven. If there are multiple points of view, YOU MUST LABLE THEM.

As I was reading this book, it constantly felt like I was waiting for it to pick up in tension, conflict, or something, but it didn’t. I like how every character had some flaws and pluses, but Gwendoline didn’t have anything to her; she was a very flat character. For example, Arthur is snarky, has a troubled family home or life, was trained in certain aspects of being an heir, and is very gay. Sidney is a Casanova who would literally waste his time to pursue a girl but is a great friend and good at his job. Gabriel is the unfortunate heir to the king who loves reading and studying and wants to be the best king he could be, but in his own way with no violence. But for Gwen, she is just very complain-y and is in love with a woman knight (I don't know what the proper term is), and she does embroidery; she is so painfully bossy. I would recommend this book to people who like lots of monologue-forward stories.

I started getting into the book around chapter 15, but then at chapter 35 it fell through, and I had trouble finishing it. I just think it's because the book keeps going back and forth between POVs and it's hard to keep track. I do like the ending I think it was wrapped up nicely. I will reread this and update my review accordingly.

[the-cat-chat]

January 4, 2025

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

At the start of the New Year, 32-year-old Bridget decides it's time to take control of her life--and start keeping a diary. With a taste for adventure, and an opinion on every subject - from exercise to men to food to sex and everything in between - she's turning the page on a whole new life.

Warning: Review may contain spoilers. Read at your own risk.

JayBell: It's a new year, and I thought we were starting off pretty safe with a rom-com with overall positive reviews. Oh how wrong I was.

At first, I felt bad for our main character Bridget. She's kind of a disaster. She goes from embarrassing moment to embarrassing moment. And yes, I think that's a crucial plot point of the movie. Here is a woman who is still figuring out her life, she's very imperfect, she makes a lot of mistakes, yet she's still deserving of love. In fact, that speech to Colin Firth about her imperfectness is perhaps my favorite part of the whole movie. Actually, Colin Firth was the only saving grace for me throughout this whole experience.

I know her behavior is supposed to humanize her and make her more sympathetic to a viewer. But it's frustrating. After a while, you just want to shake some sense into her. In the end, I don't know if I felt that she matured or grew at all from her experiences.

Speaking of the end, it's so stupid. The movie doesn't even disguise its blatant shallow manipulation of the viewer's expectations. Like no way Colin Firth reads the diary and then immediately leaves without telling her to buy her a new diary when they're literally about to sleep together. Thus prompting a half naked run through the snow leading to dramatic kiss scene. It's just stupid.

Also we reviewed the synopsis's of the sequels, and my god, you could not pay me enough money to suffer through them. I'm trying not to judge this movie on the plot of sequels that I haven't even watched, but seriously? It's hard not to.

Rating: 4/10 cats 🐈

Anzie: Honestly. I have to do bullet points or I won’t make it through. This review would probably never end. And a disclaimer: I really wish I had a time machine bc I hate starting off 2025 like this.

- First off, to say I hate Bridget Jones is too kind. I loathe her. She’s dumb and honestly all her problems are caused by her own self.

- Second - let’s fast forward to the end. She has to change her underwear. And he finds her diary. #1 my mother told me never put anything in writing. alsooooo hide that thing like you’d be mortified foooorrr the rat in your apartment to read it!!!? And she runs out in the snow in nothing but a tank top and zebra underwear - no bra- oh but wait she comes back for a size too small sweater and running shoes.

- Another issue. Hugh Grant. Listen. I get it. I’ve seen Two Weeks Notice plenty of times so I know he typically plays a jerk but also get he was somewhat attractive back in the day. But please. This character and thaaaat hair.

- The weird fight?? The whole oh he was my best man cheating scandal. There’s too much happening.

- And my final brain cell will fight to scream that I knoooow for a fact that in the fourth movie coming out this February that that young guy that was the too suspiciously attractive guy from White Lotus is definitely the love child of Hugh Grant’s character and the lady from NY- bccccc that’s the audacity this movie franchise has.

I spent sooo long wanting to see these movies and the first one made me want to claw my own liver out to beat myself senseless. And I know that’s harsh but can’t a girl ask for some minimum standards?? Bc obviously Bridget Jones can’t. And maybe that’s the lesson don’t be Bridget Jones.

Rating: 2/10 Cats 🐈 (and that’s just for Colin Firth)

[jeramewrites2]

Evil Dead Rise

Gonna make some coffee first.

I originally wanted to watch the Evil Dead Re-boot from 2013. Then I saw a family dog in the first 10 mins of the movie. My next stop is of course to https://www.doesthedogdie.com to see what happens. From what I learned there I did not watch the movie. There are two no goes for me in a movie and the two spoilers that I will never be mad at. 1) If the dog dies then I am not watching the movie. (What I learned is that it dies horribly too so no there is no way I am going to watch that.) 2) SA and revenge plots. I know that these plots can be done well and can be empowering but that is something that I cannot watch. We all have our no go’s and those are mine. The second I see a dog then I will be looking to see what happens. 

This is not only  a quark of horror movies. This is something that I will do with any movie. My partner and I had two dogs for 9 years and they died in the span of 7 months of each other, and I can't let that open. I am sure that I could go to therapy to help work through my feelings there but WHO HAS the money for that?

I did not intend that tangent to go that far. I ultimately ended up watching Evil Dead Rise. From what I have read online it is the superior movie. Then again, I just looked on Rotten Tomatoes and I am at odds with Evil Dead fans. 

Let's run the numbers.

Necronomicon? Check

Demon possession? Check

Dumb white guys messing w/ the supernatural? Check x2.

Comedy? NO

Chainsaw? (Spoiler) Check

Double barrel shot gun? Check now that I think about it.

Now what are the things that this movie has that most Evil Dead films don't have. People with deeper relationships than surface affection. I enjoyed the take on the sister's relationship of Beth and Ellie. It is more complicated than estranged sisters that will take care of each other because they must. They are believable as a family. It might just be me bringing my own emotions into the film, but I don't think so. The youngest daughter Kassie is appropriately adorable and innocent to be saved. The other two children in the equation are the oldest child Danny is the white guy that fucks with shit that he has no business fucking with. He gets them all killed. Bridget is a very responsible middle child, and her change did hit me a little hard. I enjoyed these characters and thought the whole family might get out alive.... That did not happen. After Ellie's turn it is a quick succession of murder and possession. 

There was plenty of gore for those interested... I will raise my hand there. The other apartment dwellers of the building are given little screen time and are dispatched quickly in a keyhole scene. Literally they die while Beth looks through a peephole in the door. The gore and deaths where appropriate and quick there were moments that did make me squirm. Box grater. That's all I am going to say there.

There was one line that was in the film as a check mark for the Evil Dead fans... It didn't feel out of place, but this movie felt more like it was treating the Evil Dead universe as a setting instead of a movie formula. And I am here for it. I am not a horror comedy fan for the most part. This is probably the first Evil Dead film I enjoyed but since it is really only an Evil Dead film in name and setting, I don't think I am an Evil Dead fan. Before this I would say Army of Darkness is my favorite Evil Dead film. I don't think that is an evil dead film. 

That's a lot of rambling for me to say I enjoyed this movie and I think other people should watch it too. I will follow the writer director Lee Cronin and I am interested to see what he does next.

I also watched Halloween Ends.... (I finished that movie playing at double speed.... That was the only way I was going to finish it. It was terrible.) Jamie Lee Curtis being a Zionist hurts my heart but then again, I shouldn't look for humanity in the rich.

[bloodmaarked]

sorrowland // rivers solomon

first published: 2021 read: 28 may 2024 – 31 may 2024 pages: 357 format: hardback

genres: fiction; literary fiction; horror (fantasy and realistic); lgbt (queer, lesbian) favourite character(s): i was very apathetic towards them all... least favourite character(s): see above

rating: 🌕🌕🌕🌑🌑 thoughts: 2024 seems to be a year of being disappointed by works from authors i previously liked... first faridah àbíké-íyímídé with where sleeping girls lie, then abi daré with and so i roar, and now rivers solomon with sorrowland. i'd anticipated reading this since having 5-starred an unkindness of ghosts back in 2020, but it wasn't nearly as good. from chapter one i was unimpressed and unfortunately, that just continued throughout the remainder of the book.

i didn't recall what the plot of this was before i started reading, and a lot of the time if that happens, i won't make the effort to thoroughly reread the blurb - it's already on my reading list so it can't be that bad right? so i was surprised by the horror and creepy atmosphere of the book, but luckily this was in a good way. i'm not big on reading horror, but i appreciated how it was crafted, and i could envision it all happening (the hauntings in particular) as if it was playing out on screen, imagining it like it was a Mike Flanagan series. vern's body horror i was less keen on, but that might be personal preference. it was grotesque and off-putting; it reminded me of follow me to ground by sue rainsford, which was also weird and gross, and which i also didn't like much. but if you like weird horror then you might enjoy that and sorrowland.

when it comes to the characters, i just didn't care much for them and how they were written. vern was a main character i felt distant from; she wasn't unlikeable (or i don't think she was intentionally written that way), but i didn't like her lol. the kids were a bit annoying, howling moreso than feral. perhaps i would've enjoyed this more if it had a closer focus on cainland, rather than that being a "background narrative"? i found what we learned about vern's mother, vern's husband, (i forget his name), lucy and eamon a little more interesting than the time we spent with bridget and gogo, both of whom i wasn't bothered about.

i don't know what it was but i was quite certain from the very beginning that this book simply wasn't for me. part of it was the writing style, which was a bit more obscure in the first chapter or two but seemed to become more digestible thereafter. having read AUOG four years ago, i can't say for sure but i feel like the writing style was quite different. i can't pinpoint what else it was that turned me off so fast but, although it captured me enough that i could read large chunks in one go, i wasn't actually enjoying the ride. i won't speak on the social commentary because again, i just didn't care. sorrowland was not objectively bad, but in the end i was quite glad to get the whole thing over and done with. the deep is still on my list and i'll still give it a go when i get around to it as i've heard overwhelmingly positive reviews, and it's pretty short so not a massive investment if i don't like it.

[jq37]

I feel like a general part of being grounded is not being able to go to events. If you wouldn't find a subversion of expectations satisfying that's fine, but I personally don't find it satisfying when I'm told exactly what's going to happen and then it happens. I find it much more satisfying when a story has a surprising new layer. (And, honestly, my expectations *were* subverted but not in a positive way). And new things happen in the past in a time travel story all the time. In Back to the Future, Marty accidentally makes his mom fall in love with him and has to get her to fall back in love with his dad and that's arguably the most popular time travel movie out there. And, in any case, they were told it was dangerous to change the past and then they changed they past and nothing bad happened. So nothing interesting happened there either. Maybe something will happen in a future movie but I can't judge a movie that doesn't exist yet. (And would it be interesting if the older moms recognized their daughter as their friends from the past? Yes. But we didn't get that).

I didn't say it's weird we didn't see the prank. I said it's weird we didn't see Castlecoming. They could have stopped the prank at Castlecoming itself as the climactic location. Why was the climax in Merlin's office? And I don't mean, "Why did the girls choose to steal the book from Merlin's office?" That was a smart move for their goal. My question is why did the writers let that succeed there instead of fail so the climax can be at the grand event they keep talking about? Again, maybe you liked it--I'm not here to tell you what to like--but from a writing perspective, I think it's unsatisfying. Like if we spent half a story talking about Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory but then Charlie sold his ticket for a billion dollars instead of going because his problem is his family is poor and the money solved it so why go to the factory? And, for the record since you brought it up, I Wasn't expecting or wanting a dance-off.

A character doing something against their character isn't always just "OOC". People can make a bad decision or succumb to peer pressure in a moment of weakness without changing the fact that they're fundamentally good/kind. But in any case, assuming that Ella not being there for her was what hurt her (which is very likely), it's a badly executed plot point because our protagonists never figure that out. It's never a part of the story. If they stop it, it's by accident and it's never commented on. There's never a moment of, "Wow, this is actually about friendship not about a prank." The Queen of Hearts doesn't grow as a person and neither does Bridget (she changes but she doesn't grow. It's cheap character development because she doesn't have any agency in it). The falling out (or threat of falling out) has no weight in the actual story. And it's not that every plot point has to be spoon fed to the audience, but a whole point of the story is seeing characters learn info and act on it and react to it and we don't get that so I don't see how it's satisfying. If the prank happened but they saved the future by finding Ella and bringing her to Bridget to console her and apologize for not being there, I would probably not have made this post because it would have been *something*.

If you felt satisfied by the ending then that's great. But I highly disagree that consequences of the actions shouldn't be a part of a narrative. If that was their plan then I think it was a bad plan. I don't think it ended in a satisfying place at all whereas ATSV ended with two clear threads to follow in the next movie. I don't have a problem with loose ends. I have a problem with a movie ending in a place that feels unsatisfying.

Nope. My problem with it isn't that it didn't give me the ending I wanted/expected. It's exactly what I said: that it feels like half a movie, narratively speaking. I watch tons of movies that I don't like the endings of but they have what feel like clear endings so I don't write posts about them.

That's not the same situation. D1 isn't about about the contrast of teen Maleficent and adult Maleficent. D4 IS (in large part) about the contrast between teen Bridget and the Queen of Hearts. It's not just backstory. It's the story! They literally take us back in time to stop the event that supposedly made her turn to evil. That is the plot of this movie. It doesn't matter why Maleficent became a villain because they're not trying to redeem her. (And the VK's were dancing AGAINST Bridget and the others. It was a literal Sharks v Jets style dance off. That's not the same as the kids who were dancing with her.)

I agree that things often get cancelled prematurely which is all the more reason to not count on a sequel to tell a satisfying story. I'm being generous in assuming this story is unfinished and will feel complete with a second installment. If I'm taking this movie in isolation with no sequel, I think it's just bad.

Descendants: The Rise of Red is kind of a bizarre movie to talk about critically because, imo, it almost doesn't make sense to talk about it in the usual terms of good vs bad or enjoyable vs not enjoyable when the way more obvious tension is finished vs unfinished.

Because, more than any other movie I've ever seen, it does *not* read as a full movie. And I don't mean in a "this movie has a cliffhanger" kind of way. The Empire Strikes Back and Across the Spiderverse fit that description. They end on big dramatic cliffhangers that point to a resolution in the third installment.

But Rise of Red just sets all this stuff up and then...ends without concluding anything. It doesn't feel like the first movie in a trilogy (or duology). It feels like the first act of a two-act musical. It very specifically reminds me of the end of the first act of Into the Woods where all the main characters sing the song Ever After about how they all fixed their problems with magic and nothing bad will ever happen to them again and then the narrator ominously says "To be continued" before the curtain drops. But in Into the Woods you know there's a second act and this movie wasn't sold as the first act of a bigger story. Like sure, it has the, "You didn't think this was the end" tag at the end like all the other movies, but those movies were complete, self-contained stories even though they had sequels. This was NOT a full story. It's half of one story.

Like, if we're supposed to take this as a full story, there are so many bizarre choices:

Why did they make sure to mention that Cinderella and Charming fell in love at the ball at the top if it wasn't meant to set up Back to the Future style, "Oh no, I accidentally got my mom banned from the ball so she's not gonna fall in love with Dad and I won't be born" shenanigans?

Why did Maddox very pointedly have that bit about "you could lose your mom completely" if that was never going to come into play? Red never did anything to endanger Bridget or endanger her own birth so it doesn't make sense as a warning in that way.

Why was there all this focus on this Carrie on prom night moment for Bridget if we LITERALLY NEVER SAW CASTLECOMING? Why dance around this moment and talk about it all cloak and dagger with no specificity if they weren't building up to some big reveal that it wasn't as straightforward as it seemed? And like, they leaned in HARD with making Bridget the nicest, sweetest, cotton candy princess as a teen so I need WAY more than, "She got pranked by known bullies she's been enduring with a smile very handily up to this point" to buy that she went from that to "murderous dictator". And even if she did become murderous, I find it insanely hard to believe that she'd include her best and only friend on the list of people she wants to suffer unless there was a betrayal. I find it INSANE that there wasn't a falling out scene at any point in this movie with how thickly they were laying on the admiration and camaraderie.

(Note: And adult Cinderella def has guilty vibes re: the Queen at orientation. Which I know I'm not imagining because it's literally spelled out in the Jr Novelization!)

Before the time travel element of the movie started, I thought they were going for something like they go to the past and realize that Bridget was bullied not by the VKs but by the spoiled royals, and Ella ends up joining in the bullying once she gets with Charming, betraying Bridget and justifying her whole "Love Ain't It" philosophy. Or Ella ditching her at the last minute to be with Charming meaning she has to deal with the monster prank alone and it was the being alone rather than the prank itself that hurt her (though that is NOT a good enough reason to go all off with their heads on your subjects). The fact that, as far as we know right now, it literally was just a relatively mild and reversible prank that caused all of this is just, such flat storytelling, you know?

But! All of this makes way more sense if this is meant to be the first act of a single contained story. And I don't wanna be all "Pepe Silvia, secret good 4th episode of Sherlock" about this but I did see this picture:

Which seems to indicate that this was written as a Part One. Which, if so, idk why they wouldn't advertise it that way but whatever. The point is, if that's the case then it means that we're potentially in bad pacing territory rather than straight up bad storytelling territory. Because this isn't a bad place to be halfway through your story:

The heroes, warned that time travel is dangerous, have gone back in time to change the heart of a brutal tyrant before she can stage a coup. They seemingly succeed in their mission and when they come home, everything is great! But then, the side effects of time travel start to catch up with them. Chloe realizes that, in breaking the vase, she prevented her mother from going to the ball and falling in love with her dad (who was conspicuously absent from the final scene btw) which means she's starting to be forgotten and erased from the timeline. And Red realizes that though this new version of her mom is as sweet and kind as the teen she once met, she's a complete stranger to her (fulfilling the Hatter's warning that she could lose her mom completely). So they have to go back in time once more to make sure the Ella and Charming fall in love again, perhaps at the cost of whatever bad thing that happened to Bridget happening again and bringing back the original version of her future self. But, now with more context of how her mom became that way, Red can now talk to her mother and persuade her to give people another chance.

Boom, that gives us time to go back and hit everything we haven't yet hit. We can pay off the time travel tropes that were set up but not explored. We can go to Castlecoming which feels so obviously set up to be the centerpiece of this story (like, come on, Back to the Future literally does the school dance thing. This is Time Travel Storytelling 101). We can actually get info about what the prank was and why it affected Bridget so completely.

(Note: This is a side thing but it really strikes me as so crazy that Bridget would so SUCH a big 180 here. Like, I know the Queen of Hearts is a silly, goofy, campy villain, but she straight up murders people and there's no way to get around that if we're taking her out of the surreal story she comes from and putting her in a (comparatively) grounded story. If I wasn't doing a betrayal plot, I would make the twist that the spell that turned Bridget into a "monster" didn't just have a physical effect, it had a mental effect and it magically twisted her personality to be the way it is now. So they broke the physical half of the curse, but neglected the other half and it's been festering the whole time, turning her as evil as she was sweet. Because like, a simple physical transformation isn't that big of a deal to have such heavy security--Bridget made cupcakes with a transformative effect and that was totally fine. I'm not saying that that's what's gonna be the case. I just think it would be an explanation that makes sense for why she changed so crazy much that makes more sense than a simple prank or even a betrayal. Her mom wasn't even evil! How did she go from zero to murder without even an evil mom to push her onto the path? But I'm super digressing right now.)

(Note #2: OK, one last thing. The trap on the book presumably would have hit the VK's and trapped them in Merlin's office regardless of what Chloe and Red did, right? That's like, net zero influence on the timeline. I genuinely can't tell if that's a straight up plot hole or set up to be like, "Oh no. Actually when she said that she was turned into a monster in front of everyone it was meant in a less literal way." Like she was just made to look bad and that was the real thing that pushed her over the edge. Like idk. It really feels like the only thing they really did that would change the timeline was get Ella banned from the dance and presumably out of the way where she couldn't hurt Bridget. OK NOW I'm done.)

Anyway, my point is that this is not how I would have structured my movie and I think this was a super weird way to go into the second era of Descendants movies, but they can still tell a complete story if that's their plan. I'm genuinely really curious to see if this pans out to be a fairly competently told story that just happens to be split over two movies or a complete fumbling of the narrative bag because it could really be either at this point and it's fascinating to me.