Unlike the wonderful Lindsay Ellis, I do not count a guilty pleasure as something that you know is bad, but you like it anyway. I classify a guilty pleasure as, for whatever reason, despite how much you like it, you still feel somewhat guilty about it, contradicting your normal taste. For Example, I hate Chris Brown. Hate him. But I cannot deny that Yeah x3 is a decent song, and I have a soft spot for the enjoyable high-schooly With You. But yet I still feel guilty about liking those songs, but can't deny that they are genuinely good songs. So, this is my list of songs, for whatever reason, I feel guilty for liking.
5. Beyonce-Irreplaceable
This is relatively low on the list because I don't think there is any denying Beyonce's wonderful vocals, especially on this track. But the reasons I feel somewhat guilty about this song is how flimsy the whole concept is. The motif of 'To the left, to the left' refers to a box of the old boyfriends stuff, which bugs me for some reason. And, I can already hear the feminists booing, how sexist this song is to both genders. Beyonce is yelling how her latest man is far from irreplaceable, and how she has already found another man, which if given to any other singer, would be unavoidably catty, and dare I say, slutty, really not the example such a wonderful artist like Beyonce should be promoting (As soon as you're done with one man, move on as quickly as possible to the next. Progressive, in terms of how women shouldn't have to be tied down to men, I guess, but still kind of unfair.) I also understand that this can quite easily be gender flipped to suit the man, but despite the baffling lyrics, this is still a fantastic song, and holds up 6 years later as one of Beyonce's best songs.
4. Die Antwood-I FINK U FREEKY
Oh My God, I hate Die Antwood. Aside from their videos being blatant rehashes of Prodigy videos they covered over 15 years ago, they are unbearably annoying in both vocals and repetitive music. But I love them. This is one of the bands I know less about, but if I FINK U FREEKY is anything to go by, I can summarise that they sound very like Fedde Le Grand's 2004 masterpiece Put Your Hands Up 4 Detroit. In fact, that's exactly what they sound like. And this repetitive piece of annoyance from good old South Africa is just as annoying as that song, but I can't deny it's still really good, but really bad. It's so catchy, so annoying, I don't know what to think. The problem is, I'm not sure if they're taking things seriously, if Fatty Boom Boom, their latest single is anything to go by. Are they unaware what's going on, or are they just fucking around with us. I feel the same way about Amanda Bieber, either they are really really annoying, or just joking.
3.Justin Bieber featuring Nicki Minaj-Beauty And At Beat
OK, let me make something clear. Bieber is an idiot. An idiot. Nicki Minaj is also an idiot. Both of them make an idiotic couple, they'd be perfect for each other. This song is a wonderful song however. The lyrics are hilariously dumb (Tonight we're gonna party like its 3012 tonight) as well as the hardly distinguishable chorus, which sounds like everything else in the charts. And yet, I really like this song, in particular the guest verse by Minaj, who manages to actually escape with dignity despite some horrific lines. (Buns out, weiner/But I gotta keep an eye out for Selena) It is refreshing to see the Biebs do something out of his comfort zone instead of his revolting teen bopping like Baby, or even the horrific Boyfriend, which also had his go out of his comfort zone, only to more hilarious effect. Still, this is a genuinely good song, and despite the dumb people behind it, it is still a lot of fun.
2. Katy Perry-Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)
I love Katy Perry. Like, have you heard her live performances? How does one take such an out of tune valley girl prostitute Barbie and make it so easy to listen to. Either way, this is one of the most hilariously fun songs ever written. It's just one of those songs that are so easy to dance to, like DJ Got Us Falling in Love, Boyz, or even the ridiculously dated Cha Cha Slide. And while the lyrics drag a lot, and some are just inexplicably and probably unintentionally hilarious (Think I need a ginger ale/That was such an epic fail) this song is wonderful. I love the random sax solo, that repeating wonderful chorus, the insanely irritating chants of T.G.I.F., its just a masterpiece of awful. I can't do it justice, I love it and it is awful. Simple as.
1. Ke$ha-Blah Blah Blah
I am so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so sorry. I just can't defend this one. This could be one of the worst songs of all time. It is so poorly auto-tuned so ugly, so repugnant, so stupid, and featuring the terrible vocals of the truly disgusting douche frat-boy dickheads 3OH!3, it makes me feel dirty this got to number 7 in the US and 11 in the UK. Why? Why do I like it? I just don't know. The beat is so overused, but I love it. It is like eating a full bag of sugar, so bad for you, something no one would ever do, but dammit, Google it and you will see someone doing it. Ke$ha ate her bag. She ate it all. There is nothing salvageable except maybe how ridiculously danceable it is. There are no more words. I cannot say anything else.
A blog in which I review the independent music and film scene(+ a few more mainstream ones) You'll have noticed I don't include many films with low ratings. This is because I don't believe them to be worthy of your or my time.
Friday, 30 November 2012
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Amour
Michael Haneke has never made a secret of being a cynical misanthrope, and possibly the best example of his expert sarcasm is the brutally unwatchable, although slammingly relevant Funny Games, where a family is both physically and mentally tortured by a pair of blonde haired psychopaths. Like The Haunting, the horror is in what you don't see, which makes the experience all the more intense and terrifying. Unlike many of his previous films, this concerns a suitably less macabre thing that we all have to go through; old age.
The plot inloves Georges and Anna, an elderly couple of retired musicians, living in a quinessentially French apartment in Paris. One day, after drinking some tea, Anna freezes solid in her seat. Georges is confused. He tries to talk to her. Nothing. He even puts a damp towel on her head. No reaction. Soon after, she regains conciousness and doesn't remember the episode. As people in old age do, Georges worries. Soon after, Anna gets a stroke. At first, Anna responds very well, she is bright, attentive, and almost seems to enjoy her endevour into post-stroke care, from the benefits of an electric wheelchair, to the shame of being helped into bed. Soon, however, everything starts to crumble.
The reason this film is so mesmirising is not because of the stunning performances by the lead duo (although they are spectacular, both playing incredibly difficult roles), but because of how real it feels. We can all smell the hospital, clinical smell of someone who is very ill, wer can all understand Georges anger at her for simply being ill, or even the urge to put a person of such an unwell disposition out of their misery, Haneke makes the characters feel real, and while not always the most likeable, these are the most tender and kind protaganists I have seen in any film by Haneke. This film is one of the best of the year, and anyone who has had an unwell relative must see this film. It may be a tough experiencce, but it'll be worth it
10/10
(N.B. There is a scene in this film which you think you can see coming, but you are not sure. I was shocked.)
The plot inloves Georges and Anna, an elderly couple of retired musicians, living in a quinessentially French apartment in Paris. One day, after drinking some tea, Anna freezes solid in her seat. Georges is confused. He tries to talk to her. Nothing. He even puts a damp towel on her head. No reaction. Soon after, she regains conciousness and doesn't remember the episode. As people in old age do, Georges worries. Soon after, Anna gets a stroke. At first, Anna responds very well, she is bright, attentive, and almost seems to enjoy her endevour into post-stroke care, from the benefits of an electric wheelchair, to the shame of being helped into bed. Soon, however, everything starts to crumble.
The reason this film is so mesmirising is not because of the stunning performances by the lead duo (although they are spectacular, both playing incredibly difficult roles), but because of how real it feels. We can all smell the hospital, clinical smell of someone who is very ill, wer can all understand Georges anger at her for simply being ill, or even the urge to put a person of such an unwell disposition out of their misery, Haneke makes the characters feel real, and while not always the most likeable, these are the most tender and kind protaganists I have seen in any film by Haneke. This film is one of the best of the year, and anyone who has had an unwell relative must see this film. It may be a tough experiencce, but it'll be worth it
10/10
(N.B. There is a scene in this film which you think you can see coming, but you are not sure. I was shocked.)
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
The Master
Paul Thomas Anderson has, at least in recent years, become one of Hollywood's most reliable and un-Hollywood directors. Like Christopher Nolan, he makes films that ask questions e.g. Magnolia (Are we more connected than we realise?), Boogie Nights (Is there more than sleaze in the porn scene?), or even There Will Be Blood (At what point is cruelty pushed to evil?). This film, despite whatever message there is to it, is probably Anderson's most culturally relevant film, at least in the tough, terrifying consumerist utopia, where spending money is encouraged, despite the fact that, at least in the UK, we are still ankle deep in recession.But yet, almost every day on Tottenham Court Road, the Scientologists persist in making you take a "personality test". Despite an almost worldwide reputation for being dangerous and essentially a cult, even with endorsment from Tom Cruise, one of the most irritating and reprehensible actors in recent times (Don't get me wrong, he's great in Eyes Wide Shut and Rain Man, but his overt proclamation of his beliefs lead me to believe he is copycatting Lindsay Lohan; at first I had a lot of respect for her, but now she's just a joke.) people will persist in believing a pulp fiction author has a sign that Xenu will come down to them at the Apocalypse. Anyway, I'm getting off tracks here, I'm not even talking about Scientology.
Whatever my views are on Scientology are, it can't have started off too dissimilar to how the religion in this film is made. Called "The Cause", the leader in large overalls valiantly striding down hallways being greeted by applause, cool-headed but subsequently threatening to crack at any minute, and claiming to clear the mind through an almost, one could say brainwashing way. And by God is it a role of a lifetime for Philip Seymour Hoffman. I mean, sure he's fantastic in basically in every role he's in ever. And while some claim is chilling role as Truman Capote in Capote was his shining hour, I'm not sure I agree. If Hoffman doesn't win an Oscar for this, I have lost all faith in the system.
The plot goes that Freddy played stunningly by Joaquin Phoenix in unrelenting Michael Pitt-esque fashion, a severely disturbed ex-army alcoholic, while escaping one of his colleagues he apparently poisoned, sneaks into a boat, unknown to him it is a boat holding "The Master" and his respective posse of friends convinced by his powers, including his tight-lipped wife, played remarkably straight by Amy Adams, for the wedding of his daughter. Instead of kick out the unruly drunkard, he makes Freddy make more of his brilliant home brew out of paint thinner and several other increasingly dangerous substances. While on the boat, Hoffman sets Freddy a challenge, he has to answer about 20 questions without blinking. This is possibly the best scene in the film. Freddy is cynical at first, gets angrier, then lets all his secrets out to the person he has only known for about a day. It is so disturbing and so heartbreaking to watch Phoenix break down and Hoffman to keep his monotonous voice, when the audience know how much he is being manipulated. This is a framing device for a montage of Freddy walking back and forth from a window to a wall, trying to feel what is really there. This is intercut with strange scenes about eye colour and not caring about what other people say about you. All this is building blocks which are glued together with disconcerting clarinet music which drones on at terrific effect. For the rest of the film, Freddy often uses his inescapably violent behaviour to persuade people to his religion. We are not sure if he is really devoted to the religion or if it is just an excuse to fuck around or beat people around. The scenes are wonderful.
This is one of the best and disturbing films of the year. It perfectly captures the moral greyness cults use to manipulate and the lead performances are absolutely stunning. Wonderful.
10/10
MT
Friday, 16 November 2012
Babel
One of the most maddening and frustrating excuses for refusing to watch a film is those evil 3 words 'It's too depressing'. So what? We see films with drama, action romance. Why is depression, one of the most universal traits in all of us, singled out and used against us? This film, despite how much it is associated with the dreaded b-word, is one of the most breathtaking films ever made, all centred around a simple act of foolishness committed by a little boy. Like most of Innaritu's work, it as mentioned tells the story of about 4 different people affected by a little incident.
Two young boys of a goat herder have a bit of an ego competition where they try to test a shotgun sold to them, accidentally and painfully wounding an American woman. The husband is sharp and somewhat rude, but justifiably so. The husband's children are being looked after by a Mexican woman whose son's wedding is the same time of the shooting. He tells her that she cannot go, as there is no one to look after the kids. The man who sold the kids the gun is a Japanese man whose wife has died, and has a rebellious deaf-mute daughter called Chieko. The story weaves between the 3 stories.
The thing is, everyone acts reasonably. The nanny probably shouldn't have taken the kids to the wedding, but it is her son's wedding. The husband shouldn't have been so rude to those around him, but his wife is in pain. The loud mouthed man who convinces the husband's tour bus to leave without him shouldn't have been so malicious, but the others on the bus were also suffering. Chieko should not be so rude to her father and those around her, but she is alienated by her condition and her sexual frustration. The boys shouldn't have shot the gun, but boys that age are naturally ego-centric. No one acts bizarrely or rudely and that is one of the best things about the film. The character feel real. Even those who seem cruel or unpleasant, but all of them are justifiably so.
Another reason this film is fascinating is that all the perspectives are different. We see Tokyo through the hazy eyes of Chieko, Morocco through the adolescent eyes of teenagers, as well as the tourist eyes, and vibrant Mexico through the worn eyes of a nanny who has seen her way through many children and a long, hard-working life. Every single actor and actress is brilliant, Brad Pitt is superb in some of the quieter scenes, Rinko Kikuchi is heartbreaking in a very demanding role, and the nuanced tone of the hell Adriana Barraza goes through is gut wrenchingly sad. Still, I do not care if this is depressing, it is as much a part of human emotion as happiness or sadness, why not just watch it for once?
10/10
Teo
Two young boys of a goat herder have a bit of an ego competition where they try to test a shotgun sold to them, accidentally and painfully wounding an American woman. The husband is sharp and somewhat rude, but justifiably so. The husband's children are being looked after by a Mexican woman whose son's wedding is the same time of the shooting. He tells her that she cannot go, as there is no one to look after the kids. The man who sold the kids the gun is a Japanese man whose wife has died, and has a rebellious deaf-mute daughter called Chieko. The story weaves between the 3 stories.
The thing is, everyone acts reasonably. The nanny probably shouldn't have taken the kids to the wedding, but it is her son's wedding. The husband shouldn't have been so rude to those around him, but his wife is in pain. The loud mouthed man who convinces the husband's tour bus to leave without him shouldn't have been so malicious, but the others on the bus were also suffering. Chieko should not be so rude to her father and those around her, but she is alienated by her condition and her sexual frustration. The boys shouldn't have shot the gun, but boys that age are naturally ego-centric. No one acts bizarrely or rudely and that is one of the best things about the film. The character feel real. Even those who seem cruel or unpleasant, but all of them are justifiably so.
Another reason this film is fascinating is that all the perspectives are different. We see Tokyo through the hazy eyes of Chieko, Morocco through the adolescent eyes of teenagers, as well as the tourist eyes, and vibrant Mexico through the worn eyes of a nanny who has seen her way through many children and a long, hard-working life. Every single actor and actress is brilliant, Brad Pitt is superb in some of the quieter scenes, Rinko Kikuchi is heartbreaking in a very demanding role, and the nuanced tone of the hell Adriana Barraza goes through is gut wrenchingly sad. Still, I do not care if this is depressing, it is as much a part of human emotion as happiness or sadness, why not just watch it for once?
10/10
Teo
Is 3D the future of cinema?
Do you remember 3D? No, no, not 3D as in that 3D-ifying technique, used as a sad attempt to gross more, disgustingly used by a certain number of directors I have come to loathe because of their persistent use of it (I'm looking at you, McG) I mean actual 3D. One of my most fond memories was seeing a 40 minute documentary at the London Science Museum called Bugs in 3D. It was stunning. Some of the images were absolutely mind-boggling. I could see them, actually see their strange little bodies coming toward me. They were right in front of me. Or so my five-year-old brain assumed.
3D works through the natural positioning of the eyes, the left eye seeing more of the left side of an object and vice versa, the brain fusing both viewpoints together to create 3D vision. 3D works in a similar way, with two images being subsequently projected simultaneously for each eye. The full effect is utilised with a pair of glasses to produce the so-called 3D effect.
Another director I get frustrated with is that king of all blockbusters but rip-off story lines, James Cameron. Maybe one day I will review Cameron's 2009 homage to Smurfs, but this is not one of those times. He has declared 3D 'The future of cinema', a statement I find considerably hard to swallow, especially when you take into account 3D is not that new of an invention, having been around in the fifties, when audiences were more ignorant and dumber than those today (although this is not entirely true, Danny Dyer is an apparent bankable lead, especially after threatening to head butt the wonderfully cynical Mark Kermode because 'he doesn't take me seriously as an actor'. Neither does the rest of the world, but hey, anyone who has a measly amount of fame deserves a film career, as Kevin Smith so marvellously put it 'failing upwards')
Here's the thing. Modern audiences should be clever enough to realise that 3D is just a cheap ploy to get butts in seats (or should I say expensive, considering the ridiculous £15 price an unnamed cinema charges for 3D) and should know that if they dropped seeing 3D films every month for 2 years, they could raise enough money to build a well in Africa. It is too expensive, too nauseating, and is simply almost always a horrible headachey experience-almost always.
I could rant all day about 3D, but I will grant a tiny measly bit of respect to it; depending on the film, it can be mesmerising. No matter how much I hated it, and I really hated it, Avatar did actually look beautiful. Sure Sam Worthington, and the remarkable resemblance of the plot to, oh, I don't know, Ferngully, Pocahuntus, Dances With Wolves, Last Of The Dogmen, The Emerald Forest and the many other films that has that damn same plot, were distracting, but I cannot fault how beautiful the world looked. However, the point is just because it looks beautiful, doesn't mean it's worth dying of a migraine for it. If you want beautiful just go to a park, or a lake, or close your eyes and use your damn imagination. Don't spend 5 quid on an extra you can get for free.
The main issue with 3D is that all it is is a gimmick, a cheap old gimmick. It's lost its gleam since the Golden Age of 3D and I can assert from a large percentage of people that it is an easy way to drain your bank account. It can be used to nice effect but no, 3D is not the future of cinema. It is a bunch of idiots with money to waste going to a cinema to wear stupid glasses and get a headache.
3D works through the natural positioning of the eyes, the left eye seeing more of the left side of an object and vice versa, the brain fusing both viewpoints together to create 3D vision. 3D works in a similar way, with two images being subsequently projected simultaneously for each eye. The full effect is utilised with a pair of glasses to produce the so-called 3D effect.
Another director I get frustrated with is that king of all blockbusters but rip-off story lines, James Cameron. Maybe one day I will review Cameron's 2009 homage to Smurfs, but this is not one of those times. He has declared 3D 'The future of cinema', a statement I find considerably hard to swallow, especially when you take into account 3D is not that new of an invention, having been around in the fifties, when audiences were more ignorant and dumber than those today (although this is not entirely true, Danny Dyer is an apparent bankable lead, especially after threatening to head butt the wonderfully cynical Mark Kermode because 'he doesn't take me seriously as an actor'. Neither does the rest of the world, but hey, anyone who has a measly amount of fame deserves a film career, as Kevin Smith so marvellously put it 'failing upwards')
Here's the thing. Modern audiences should be clever enough to realise that 3D is just a cheap ploy to get butts in seats (or should I say expensive, considering the ridiculous £15 price an unnamed cinema charges for 3D) and should know that if they dropped seeing 3D films every month for 2 years, they could raise enough money to build a well in Africa. It is too expensive, too nauseating, and is simply almost always a horrible headachey experience-almost always.
I could rant all day about 3D, but I will grant a tiny measly bit of respect to it; depending on the film, it can be mesmerising. No matter how much I hated it, and I really hated it, Avatar did actually look beautiful. Sure Sam Worthington, and the remarkable resemblance of the plot to, oh, I don't know, Ferngully, Pocahuntus, Dances With Wolves, Last Of The Dogmen, The Emerald Forest and the many other films that has that damn same plot, were distracting, but I cannot fault how beautiful the world looked. However, the point is just because it looks beautiful, doesn't mean it's worth dying of a migraine for it. If you want beautiful just go to a park, or a lake, or close your eyes and use your damn imagination. Don't spend 5 quid on an extra you can get for free.
The main issue with 3D is that all it is is a gimmick, a cheap old gimmick. It's lost its gleam since the Golden Age of 3D and I can assert from a large percentage of people that it is an easy way to drain your bank account. It can be used to nice effect but no, 3D is not the future of cinema. It is a bunch of idiots with money to waste going to a cinema to wear stupid glasses and get a headache.
Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
I can't deny, I do think there is something to be said in a case like Gwen Stefani. How does the lead vocalist successfully transfer from a quintessentially 90's New-Wave band transfer to the new millennium as the next pop sensation, without looking cheap or tacky? I don't really know how Gwen Stefani did it, but I can't deny what a refreshing voice in contemporary pop music, even if some of her later work (cough cough Wind It Up) is, well, weak at best. This, however, is truly what I think pop should sound like. It was far from pain to listen to. The same cannot be said of the hellish production of the album.
After basically being forced into working with Linda Perry, Stefani was exhausted after her final No Doubt tour, and suffering from extreme writers block and depression, Stefani was in far from the right frame of mind to write music. After being asked by Perry "What are you waiting for?", she wrote her masterpiece of electro-rock, telling her story of her stress and feelings of judgement she felt from others. And what a song it is. The angst ridden yells of (Now look at your watch now/You're still a super-hot female/You got your million dollar contract/And they're all waiting for your hot track) fantastically address an area of song-writing we very rarely see, and underline Mrs Stefani's rejection of selling out. The song is spectacular.
So once you've made the best, can you make it better? Well, no, but you can try. There is a pleasant nod to Madonna with the nice Cool, where she adresses her ex boyfriend in a way that is nuanced enough to be irresistible. Rich Girl is decent, but I find it ironic how someone who has soldover 33 million albumns is wondering what it would be like to be rich (plus we get her obnoxious obsession with her dancers, The Harajuku Girls) Hollaback Girl is probably the most infamous track by Stefani, despite the fact it is fun and fresh, and far from the worst lyrics. (That prestigious award goes to Yummy. (I'm feeling yummy from head to toe/Ain't got no patience so lets go) Flo Rida has better lyrics, and he is the one who uttered I'm betting you like people/And I'm betting you love freak mode.)
The best of the non What You Waiting For? part of the album is the weirdly very-catchy, but-not-at-all- catchy Luxurious, which is essentially an answer to Rich Girls, moaning about the luxuries of being rich and successful, which I can relate to so much. Here we get verses about the joys of cashmere and sparkly things, and a rap verse by Slim Thug, who, to be fair, is not half assing it.
All in all, it would be a good album if we didn't have that sucker punch What You Waiting For? But thanks to that bit of pop brilliance, this came out as one of the surprise hits of 2004. Rather lovely.
9/10
Teo
After basically being forced into working with Linda Perry, Stefani was exhausted after her final No Doubt tour, and suffering from extreme writers block and depression, Stefani was in far from the right frame of mind to write music. After being asked by Perry "What are you waiting for?", she wrote her masterpiece of electro-rock, telling her story of her stress and feelings of judgement she felt from others. And what a song it is. The angst ridden yells of (Now look at your watch now/You're still a super-hot female/You got your million dollar contract/And they're all waiting for your hot track) fantastically address an area of song-writing we very rarely see, and underline Mrs Stefani's rejection of selling out. The song is spectacular.
So once you've made the best, can you make it better? Well, no, but you can try. There is a pleasant nod to Madonna with the nice Cool, where she adresses her ex boyfriend in a way that is nuanced enough to be irresistible. Rich Girl is decent, but I find it ironic how someone who has soldover 33 million albumns is wondering what it would be like to be rich (plus we get her obnoxious obsession with her dancers, The Harajuku Girls) Hollaback Girl is probably the most infamous track by Stefani, despite the fact it is fun and fresh, and far from the worst lyrics. (That prestigious award goes to Yummy. (I'm feeling yummy from head to toe/Ain't got no patience so lets go) Flo Rida has better lyrics, and he is the one who uttered I'm betting you like people/And I'm betting you love freak mode.)
The best of the non What You Waiting For? part of the album is the weirdly very-catchy, but-not-at-all- catchy Luxurious, which is essentially an answer to Rich Girls, moaning about the luxuries of being rich and successful, which I can relate to so much. Here we get verses about the joys of cashmere and sparkly things, and a rap verse by Slim Thug, who, to be fair, is not half assing it.
All in all, it would be a good album if we didn't have that sucker punch What You Waiting For? But thanks to that bit of pop brilliance, this came out as one of the surprise hits of 2004. Rather lovely.
9/10
Teo
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Perfect People
I finished Perfect People feeling remarkably frustrated. Why would such a genuinely captivating act 1 and 2 be abandoned for such a sappy, Hollywood, and downright dumb ending? It feels like Peter James was aware that the first 3/4 of the book was actually really good but couldn't decide on an ending and just watched Superbabies: Baby Geniuses for inspiration. I am fine with suspension of disbelief. Take something like Signs or Mysterious Skin, both of which when broken down, are technically ridiculous, but you get too invested in the plot and characters to notice or care. The same cannot be said for this. The plot goes that a young-ish grieving couple's baby Halley has died (from an incurable disease which both the parents have in their DNA), are sent to the controversial Dr Leo, whose expensive and lengthy treatment will ensure another baby. But is this as it seems? His intrusive and erratic behaviour makes the couple think they may be designing their own babies. And when numerous complications occur over the pregnancy, they start getting worried. These chapters are truly effective and get uncomfortably under your skin. The charismatic, though not entirely original Dr Leo gets to play out his character excellently, and the young couple, despite how painfully naive they are, we still get to share their desperate attempts at another child. And then...it gets ridiculous. I will not reveal it but trust me, it starts getting really silly. The depressing thing about this book is that, like I said before, it starts so well but descends into eye-rolling ridiculousness. Annoying.
2/5
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)