#5; Thor: The Dark World.

Film: Thor: the Dark World (2013) [Dir. Alan Taylor, starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Christopher Ecclestone)
No, I don't just go and see films with Chris Hemsworth in, I promise. It's just he's been in some darn good'uns recently.
Now, you probably don't know me particularly well (and if you do, hello guys!) but something that's extremely obvious about me when you meet me is that I have a wee obsession with Marvel superhero films. Actually, it's not that wee. When I was ~9, the first XMen movie came out and I was lost. Lost to a world of mutants and superpowers and good vs evil and it was everything I loved. Of course, XMen had a bumpy movie career with the FANTASTIC X2 and the forgettable X3: The Last Stand (and the less said about Origins the better, in my opinion). Then, more Marvel heroes arose from the comic universe.
We had Spiderman the whole time, swinging through New York and don't get me wrong, I loved him too but Spiderman 3 was an equally TERRIBLE movie so I fell out with him pretty quickly. Also, The Hulk films but given I fell asleep during both of them, I don't feel qualified to comment!.
But then Iron Man and Thor and Captain America (and the relaunch of my boys in Yellow, XMFC - the best movie of 2011 in my opinion) appeared on my radar and it was beautiful. Iron Man was cocky but he was fun. Thor was shouty and he was much less fun. Captain America was the weakest of the trio and despite being a wonderful character, the film was dire.
AND THEN THE AVENGERS ARRIVED. and I rewatched Thor and I basically realised that contrary to popular belief, he was the best Avenger (and I won't hear comments disputing that). So to say I was excited for Thor: The Dark World is an underestimate for the shit my flatmates had to put up with.
Oh this movie.
OH. THIS. MOVIE.
Firstly, as you can see from the poster, this film satisfied one thing for me. More romance between Thor and his lady love, Jane. Yes, they spent two days together in the first film and it's RIDICULOUS that she'd care so much but I'm not fussed. Again, I won't hear you be rude about them.
Secondly, it was just perfect. It was funny and gritty and clever and sad and happy and romantic and yes.
It begins with us meeting our villains for the next two hours; the Dark Elves. Yes, I expected more from them too given how EVIL they are. The 9th Doctor is there, unrecognisable speaking gibberish. We're a long way from Earth now, Toto. The Asgardians arrive, shit goes down and they are all slaughtered except from Malekith and his best mate who vow to be awesome later on.
We move back to the Hall of Science where Loki is returning to Asgard post his temper tantrum that destroyed most of Manhattan to hear his punishment from his douchebag adopted dad, Odin (least. favourite. person. ever). Notably, Frigga, his mother is the person who is most affected by Loki's destructive nature and it's touching and it's sad and Frigga. ♥ One thing I would have maybe loved from Thor 1 and 2 is an exploration of the awesomeness of Frigga. She is perpetually underappreciated as a character, but anyway.
Thor is off sorting out one of the nine realms and doing a mighty good job. Yet again, his exposition is surrounded by war and fighting; in keeping with his nature, I feel. When he returns, he feigns some bullshit to begger off going to a party and instead goes off to see Heimdall (♥♥) and finds out Jane is missing. Then by some weird magical magic that is wiped over, he ends up on Earth (.. why he couldn't have gone to her at some point and been like "I'm a bit busy but I thought I'd mention I haven't forgotten you?" no one knows.) with Jane and it's all beautiful and he takes her to Asgard and then lots and LOTS of things go wrong.

To say this was the film of my dreams is not necessarily true. It was perfect in so many ways but then NOT QUITE. The dynamic between Thor and Loki is played to a tee and you can tell that the actors have fantastic chemistry off-screen because they gel so well on screen. The same can be said for Thor and Jane (I was going to say that, whatever the outcome) and I'm grateful Jane got to continue being badass. The only problem is the end. I have a major, massive, super problem with the end. It was just. Blagh. I got to the end thinking, oh my god, it's honestly my new XMFC and then that. It's EVEN WORSE than Beach Divorce.
I was so disappointed. I expected better. I expected MORE.
The writers are clearly brilliant. They have written an amazing story that plays to the strength of their leads and it works extremely well but why, why, why couldn't they come up with a better closing?

Back to the happy; the acting is topnotch and I enjoyed everyone immensely - they are all wonderful people and Kat Dennings in anything just makes me grin. It's also beautifully shot. Seeing more of Asgard was fantastic and there are some wonderful scenes. Somewhat jealous it's not a real place, it's like a permanent Renaissance fair! Also, seeing other realms was an expansion into an almost endless universe of possibilities. It was grittier and darker than the last one (hint: The Dark World) but personally, I think Thor needed that. His shouty personality and inner spoiled child didn't work in Technicolor in Thor. He needs the grit and dirt.

Ps, for those that care, he is way calmer and less angry in this film. It's a much nicer atmosphere and just cements to me how freaking AWESOME Thor is.

tl;dr?: If you love Thor, this film is for you. If you love Loki, this film is for you. If you love a good fantasy, space epic, please, this film is pretty fantastic, covering the genres well and with respect. If you like Odin, please leave my blog :) ★★★★½

A BOOK REVIEW IS COMING SOON, I PROMISE.
Join me at tumblr and goodreads. Twitter on request. 
Follow me on bloglovin'

#4: Rush

Film: Rush (2013) (dir. Ron Howard, starring Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Brühl, Olivia Wilde)

Is it weird to go and see a film about Formula 1 if you actually despise motor racing? Personally, when that film is Rush, I think the answer is a big fat no.
"Well, Laura," I hear you ask, "why did you go in the first place if you don't even like the subject matter?"
The answer is both simple and vaguely embarrassing. It's also probably the token answer of girls my age. You can see his face on the left.
(Typing this I'm probably blushing).
To be fair, my flatmate and I deduced that the groups of girls in the cinema were there for the same reason (and when that reason is shirtless, it just gets better). I was not alone in my shallow madness.
Because of this though, I went in with very low expectations. I knew from reading about it that the reviews were better than good, they were excellent and I expected that even if the crashing and bashing and 'nnnghewwwww (the motor racing noise as cars go round bends. You know what I mean)' noises were a bit irritating and over the top than it may still be an enjoyable watch.
I didn't therefore think that I would come out waxing lyrical about this film. Honestly.
The premise is this. 1976 Formula 1 season. Shit is going down between the British driver, James Hunt and his 'enemy' behind the wheel, Austria's Niki Lauda. It's a true story so if you are interested in how it turns out, please feel free to Wikipedia it. As you've guessed from the poster, it is potentially a film about James Hunt. And that, dear readers is where I must correct you. It is a fascinating balance between the stories of both men. It gives both Hemsworth and Brühl adequate air time, if not slightly more in Lauda's favour. And despite going to stare at Chris Hemsworth's face, I was not disappointed to spend more of my time seeing Daniel Brühl's face.
Given that both actors are playing Formula 1 drivers, they do not stint on passion and drive. Each provides their character with great sensitivity and the passion expected from such determined people and I was gunning for them both by the end. The only problem therefore is they are the shining lights and no supporting actor comes close. There is a cheeky wee role for the wonderful Stephen Mangan, who I love dearly but in the light of Hemsworth and Brühl, he might as well just not bother. It's the same for all the others; Lauda's wife, Marlene (Alexandria Maria Lara (three first names, say wha-?), Clay Regazzoni (Pierfrancesco Favino) and other bit parts (particularly Olivia Wilde who gets high billing but blink and you miss her; much like the marriage between Suzy and James) who try their best but are not quite as bright.
It's not just the acting though that's classy. The whole film reeks of 1970s 'class'. It's shot in that romantic sepia the era requires and the music, oh the music. Hans Zimmer masterfully scores a soundtrack to be proud of. It's a soundtrack I do need in my life it's that beautiful. Sweeping vistas are created in his orchestra, beefed out by classic rock of the age. It's a masterpiece running alongside the film. Everything is touched with respect, love and adoration. It's a film for the eyes (and not just because Chris is easy on them).
Ron Howard has created a triumph in Rush. It's not just a driving film by the end. It's a film of friendship, love and passion. A film that needs the explosions to be set pieces, but the true explosions are in the acting and the details. It's a film that needs to be seen.

tl;dr?: A top cinema pick of 2013. A driving film with so much more going for it. Wonderful atmosphere, wonderful actors and a fantastic story. Ron Howard, I bow to you. ★★★★★

(teeny bit of admin; as you may have noticed, I watch more films than I read books (I just don't have the time, guys) SO, I'm going to do special book features when I complete a book and I will do films as often as I have time. Recommendations by the way are welcome at all times! Drop me a wee message. Next will be a book review because I finished one the other day!)
Join me at tumblr and goodreads. Twitter on request. 
Follow me on bloglovin'

#4 (or 3.5): Divergent/Insurgent

This isn't really a fourth post, it's more 3 mark 2, as I fulfill the book quota that I didn't include last time. I fear, as I'm doing two books, this could get quite long.

Book: Divergent and Insurgent, both by Veronica Roth (2011 and 2012)
I will admit, my book taste feels a bit like a Young Adult bestseller list (or something that a 12 year old boy requests for Christmas due to my unhealthy obsession with Anthony Horowitz' books and lame fantasy adventure, even though I'm 21 and female).
I would be ashamed of that but I'm really not. Some Young Adult writers write beautiful pieces. It's cliche, I know, but I did genuinely adore John Green's 'The Fault in Our Stars' but also, I have real love for 'Boy Meets Boy' by David Levithan (who is a friend of John Green. Their novel 'Will Grayson, Will Grayson' is another classic with me) and if you've missed the internet phenomena that was Susan Ee's Angelfell, get ON THAT. (I intend to review this at a later date, if only to read it again..)
These authors have moved me. They've made me connect with characters, empathise with their situation or create a magical world for myself. Veronica Roth did not. Yes, I'm aware that is an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sorry.
I read Divergent because of the comparisons with Suzanne Collins' fantastic series, The Hunger Games (if you haven't heard of it/read it, get out from under your rock. Where have you been? Quick run down - the president of the US is still black, there is still war in the Middle East, the Hunger Games was the biggest phenomena to young adults since Twilight (I know that wasn't long ago, but we have a short attention span, keep up!) and Hannah Montana is now a natural blonde and naked more often than not.) but I have to say, that's an insult.
The stage is Chicago. A dystopic Chicago in fact, because currently a book cannot be published without a wee dash of dystopia (yes, 2010, it was vampires. We've moved up.. maybe). Everyone is separated in 'factions' based on their leading personality type and at the age of 16, teenagers are assessed and may, if needs be, leave their families and join a new faction. This is what happens to Beatrice Prior (pretentiously calling herself 'Tris' when she moves), the protagonist of our story. She moves to Dauntless, the foolhardy, idiotic bunch (yes, I think I'd be Candor. To the surprise of no one) and then SHIT GOES DOWN. That's really all I can say without spoiling it too much for you. Just know that things happen, people die, she falls in love (which is a bit out of place, but okay) and there are punches and knives thrown. I did say they were foolhardy.
In Divergent, Tris is alright. She's just alright. She's not a particularly strong protagonist and I find her extremely uninteresting. Her thoughtprocesses do not capture my attention and also, I find a lot of her choices unjustified and bizarre. Roth clearly bends Tris to fit the story rather than the story to envelope her character.
In Divergent, this is manageable. In fact, on the whole, Divergent is just that. Okay. It's an alright read if only because it's a good enough exposition. It sets up something that could be really awesome. Tris has some potential.
In Insurgent, she is unbearable. Tris is quite possibly the whiniest motherfudger to walk this Earth (tied with Bella Swan to be honest). Her choices are reckless, stupid and just.. oh god, slap the girl can you? It took me nearly a week and a half to finish the book because she just made me so infuriated. The whole world revolved around her and her inner crises. 'I have to deal with this HUGE CRAP all by myself because heaven forbid I tell anyone and make my life easier, moan, whine, moan.' Just, one steaming pile of no.
This happened in Mockingjay and I lost all respect for Katniss but with Katniss, there was a backstory. Hell, I'd be fucked up if I'd had to go through all of that TWICE. With Tris, she did one bad thing (okay, it was pretty awful) and something happens which is really, really crappy BUT THE WHOLE WORLD COLLAPSES AND EVERYTHING IS ABOUT HER AND OH MY GOD. I just. Pull your shit together, girl. We cannae be dealing with this nonsense.
Other issues with Insurgent include (but are not limited to): the constant moving (I got whiplash trying to keep up with the different places and people), the fact that Jeanne Matthews was actually a pretty weak villain really, the fact Four is actually a bit wet and to top it all off, I lost the train early on and just couldn't keep up, the political intrigue just isn't good enough to keep you intrested. Oh and the fact I really stopped caring.

tl;dr? The least exciting dystopic novel to fall in my lap, possibly ever. Bothered, I was not. Tris makes you want to punch walls. Or her. Avoid if you get easily irritated. Or if you like a well built character.
Divergent:★★★☆☆
Insurgent: ★★☆☆☆

Join me at tumblr and goodreads. Twitter on request. 
Follow me on bloglovin'

#3: Elysium

Film: Elysium (2013) (dir. Neill Blomkamp, starring Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley)
Confession time (as seems to be a tradition with film reviews I make).
I. Haven't. Seen. District. 9.
That felt like a proper "I'm Laura and I haven't had a drink in 12 days" type confession. Also, vaguely cathartic. I suggest you try it some time.
District 9, if you are like me and avoided it, was a film that seemed to appear out of the undergrowth and introduced a whole new form of class-ism into society (apartheid but instead of racism through colour, it was racism through well, being an alien (an actual alien)), giving us plenty to talk about. As I haven't seen it, I cannot comment but friends and family who have seen it (ie, most of them) were extremely impressed. It was for that reason we went to see Blomkamp's sophomore effort, 'Elysium'.
My, what a lot of food for thought. I should point out that when I first left the movie theatre, I was in awe of this movie and my review would probably have been very different. In the cold (rainy) light of day, there are more plotholes in this movie than Swiss cheese so, we shall see where I go with this review.
First, a summary so you get where I'm going with this. The year is 2154 and Earth has become unbearable. Therefore, those with money have eloped to Elysium, an 'intergalactic' space station hanging above Earth (it can be accessed by pod in ~15 minutes or so to give you an idea of closeness). Down on Earth however, it is like one large shanty town. Everyone is fighting for space, jobs, healthcare; you name it, we haven't got enough of it. Therefore, people are illegally entering Elysium airspace to try and get medical attention. Yes, you guessed it. This was a film centered around healthcare and our ability to access it dependent on class and money. Obamacare, anyone? Also, Pixar might have got in on a similar story five years earlier; be the judge of that yourself.
Unfortunately, that is all it is about but not all it could be about. You get me? The world of Elysium is great and filled with potential (ie, some of the questions my mum asked me after were like; why don't all doctors leave Earth if they can afford to be in Elysium? There is still class-ism on Earth as some people had wide screen TVs and some people didn't. Is Elysium more communist in that everyone has greatness and no one is in the lower echelons of society? How is the political structure on Earth if politicians leave to be on Elysium because they can afford it? HOW DOES THE ATMOSPHERE STAY ON ELYSIUM IF THERE IS NO ROOF? (if you see it, this question will become clear and if you have an answer, please let me know!)) but was so underexplored. Instead, we spent time scrabbling on Earth which was not half as interesting.
However, the cinematography was stunning. Visually, Blomkamp created a clear divide between the lush, rich environment on Elysium where life is technicolour, whilst Earth was multiple shades of grey. The shanty town in Mexico City where this was filmed (but was meant to be Los Angeles (oh how the great do fall)) illustrated the true desperation society could reach if allowed to make it that far and only highlighted the true extreme differences between the two habitats.
Yet, even with the flawed story, the acting in Elysium was top notch. Matt Damon never fails to impress me. Having seen his other summer release, Behind the Candelabra (at least it was in the UK) where his character couldn't be more different, I never felt I was watching the same actor. Max comes to life in Damon's hands and he plays the character sympathetically and creates someone we cannot help but root for, despite the crimes he must commit. Jodie Foster, the other major name in this movie was both brilliant but undervalued. Her part felt very short, a blink and you miss her character. She was billed as the villain of the piece, but personally, I think that award goes to the agent she hires, played expertly by Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp alum. He gave terrifying a whole new face (literally, as you will see). His part was in equal parts (okay, maybe 60-40) menacing and hilarious. He was an attempt of comic relief yet the most dark comedy you've ever witnessed. He needed a 'Do Not Underestimate' tag on his army kit, I can tell you.
All in all, Elysium is a film worth seeing if only because Dystopia is a fascinating subject. It is interesting to see where the world could go. Personally, I'd prefer Elysium over some other scenarios (the Hunger Games = I'd die in the first five seconds or 1984 = the idea of limiting knowledge scares me more than anything) but if we could try and avoid it, that'd be swell, ta.

tl;dr?: Personally, I think Wall-E told a similar story but was hella cuter. Better luck next time, Blomkamp. A film worth seeing if only because analysis in the aftermath is so great. ★★★½*☆

(yes, I did say I'd do a book and a film review. This just grew to be a monster so I'm going to do a book-only review in the next post!)
(*read ½ as a half star and this will remain the same in all future posts)
Join me at tumblr and goodreads. Twitter on request. 
Follow me on bloglovin'

#2: "Yer a wizard, Harry."

Ah, Harry Potter. The series that defines a generation. Literally.
The reason I've chosen to write about this particular subject for my second blog post is threefold (in the voice of Chandler Bing (please, if you get that reference, we will be best friends, no doubt about it).. you ready?)

1. There are books AND films to discuss.
2. I've just been to the tour and oh my word (see some pictures attached to this blog).
3. I was brought up in and around Alnwick, Northumberland and some of the first/second film was shot at the building next door to my school.  I was too young (by a YEAR) to be in the film, but friends of mine were (our school filled out Ravenclaw seats (which btw, is my house from Pottermore so it would have been perf, but I'm not bitter. Much.)) and my best friend at the times' dad provided the gas tanks for the Quidditch stuff and got to see them shoot scenes. Therefore, for sentimental reasons, there is a hell of a lot there for me.

Ollivanders

Privet Drive

The thing I find so fascinating about Harry Potter is the way it managed to capture the imagination of children from all walks of life, all over the world. My friends abroad, no matter of nationality, have read the books, seen the films and lived for a brief moment in their life in their head at Hogwarts. At it's heart, it is a simple novel with simple ideals - Love conquers all.

I mean, yes, if we seriously get down to brass tax, there is a lot more to Harry Potter than just that, but it's half 12 at night and I'm not feeling up to in-depth analysis (my apologies).

Now, if I'm honest, there are faults with both the books and the movies. That had to be the case. With so much material, there were going to be errors. The books get too long. They strip away the need for the child/adult to create the world for themselves. I realised during a recent re-read of the earliest books that important scenes (that I thought were heavily written about given how long they were in the film (for example)) were maybe a page long? Couple of pages at most. The rest I had created for myself. The feelings and environment were inventions of my imagination alone. When you get to The Order of the Phoenix, that need is lost. We become spoon-fed a greater proportion of detail. Plus, if we're talking about OOTP, I have to say Harry's teenage angst made me want to slap him upside his head. I mean, seriously, we get it sucks but lord, if you could stop whining for a second and just. Also, Sirius died and I was not okay with that.
With the movies, the faults are greater if only because as a fan, there are little details I loved that were cut or things that I felt were tampered with too much (the tent movie, for example - what a travesty) and due to that I was a bit uncomfortable with some of the choices made. I mean, I love them as a separate artform. They bring Ms Rowling's world to life in a way I couldn't imagine and to a level of detail that (now I've been to see the sets) makes you feel as if this world does exist just beyond your muggle vision. The choices of actors was always a triumph, including wee Harry himself, DanRad (I'm a fan, don't get me wrong, but in POA I want to shake him. The level of emotion in the film is almost a complete loss. Maybe it was his boy hormones messing with his head and he wasn't yet old enough to deal). As a self-pronounced Sirius fangirl, I didn't see Gary Oldman at the start but by his death (still not over, beeteedubs), I was sobbing and he became my Sirius.

All of this said, they are all part of a greater series that gave children my age and older something to read, to watch and to love. The be all and end all? Every second I spent reading and watching (and getting frustrated over the tiniest of details) was so unbelievably worth it. No matter how old I get or where I am, I still feel the magic of the story. I have friends who, even at 21, sit down with me and we discuss all the little things about these stories.

Will this last forever? Who knows. I'm not Raven (go on, make my day and tell me you know what I mean) and I cannot see into the future. Is Harry Potter a classic? Cliche as it may be, only time will tell.

For the curious, my ratings
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Book/Film: ★★★★☆
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - Book: ★★★★★, Film: ★★★★☆
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Book/Film: ★★★★★
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Book/Film: ★★★★★ (The film rating is partly due to the fact I have so many inside jokes around this movie..)
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - Book/Film: ★★★☆☆ (The rating is partly given due to the fact Sirius died and I'm still not emotionally over that)
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - Book/Film: ★★★★☆
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Book: ★★★★★, Film Part I: ★★★☆☆, Film Part II: ★★★★★ (averaged at: ★★★★☆)
Join me at tumblr and goodreads. Twitter on request. 
Follow me on bloglovin'

Already off to a bad start.

I'm ashamed.

I promised one blog post a week and I haven't even managed that (every Thursday, right?).

I have a brilliant excuse. Well I don't. Just know I've been busy moving back to university and things I wrote my plans in/on have been mislaid.

So, I can promise you two (not one, but TWO) posts on Sunday (that's the 15th).

Go forth and hate on me. It's okay. I will reiterate - I'm ashamed and therefore very, very sorry.

The next post beeteedubs should be amazing. Like I'm actually properly excited about sitting down and writing it. I have a plan and everything.
Stay tuned, if you can forgive me this indiscretion.

Join me at tumblr and goodreads. Twitter on request. 
Follow me on bloglovin'

#1: Blue Jasmine and The Song of Achilles

A witty first line would really set this off but unfortunately, I'm just not that good. But let's get cracking, there is truly no time like the present.

Film: Blue Jasmine (2013) (dir. Woody Allen, starring Cate Blanchett, Sally Hawkins, Alec Baldwin)
This isn't a film I normally turn on. I'll be the first to admit that. I had a bad experience with a Woody Allen film in the past where, and this might be an unpopular opinion but I'm prepared for your hate, I've found him extraordinarily pretentious. It made for uncomfortable viewing in my opinion and that is due to one of my own fundamental flaws. I become very engrossed the character and who the character is. In our previous encounter, Woody and I fell out over a character and characterisation so my reservations were very much online when I went to see Blue Jasmine.
How wrong could I be? This film was not only well told and well portrayed by each member of the cast that I felt everything and even Alec Baldwin's turn as the philandering fraudster husband was respected for his flaws. The cinematography is beautiful and it seems San Francisco is the perfect setting juxtaposed to New York City for this film of depression and loss. Yet, it all comes back to Jasmine. As the title would suggest, she is the person on which the whole story hangs but she's almost too fragile for it to carry. A weaker actress than Blanchett would falter but as expected, Cate rises to the occasion and carries the film to unprecedented heights. However with both the film and Jasmine, I struggled with the end (Woody wasn't going to get away scot free with me!) where I failed to understand the outcome. Maybe I wanted it all wrapped up in a bow but it is possible that I failed to see that for Jasmine (and thus the audience) that couldn't be the case.

tl;dr? Allen, I applaud you. Plus if Cate Blanchett is not recognised for this fantastic performance, I shake my head at all judges everywhere. ★★★★☆

Book: The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller (2012)

I'm prepared to admit I might be biased when it comes to writing this review. I will attempt to avoid being so but given the affection I have for this novel, it might slip in from time to time.
Ms Miller is my current favourite author. It takes a lot for me to say that but with the Song of Achilles, she deserves the plaudits. A novel set pre- and during Homer's the Iliad, Miller sets herself the task of highlighting, understanding and analysing the love between Achilles and his comrade, Patroclus. Their relationship has long been a talking point surrounding the Iliad and there has been throughout history and discussion the implication that Achilles and Patroclus engaged in pederasty. This is the train Miller follows between the two boys. Written from Patroclus' point of view, it begins with their meeting and the development of what is and cannot be denied, even in the Iliad, an eternal friendship. This however evolves into something more.
Miller writes with affection for the subject but also for her characters. She captures the heart of the matter and also encapsulates beautifully in words the true emotion of the relationship. Yet, don't read this novel if you are expecting a blood-thirsty warfest. That, it sure isn't. This is, at its core, a romance. A homosexual romance. You have to be man/woman enough to accept that. However, if this is your first dabble in this LGBT genre, note, there is one true mention of intimate relations and the rest is more glazed over.
Sometimes, there is slight over-embellishment and Patroclus could potentially stop describing Achilles' body to the reader but really, once you've fallen for this book, that really doesn't matter. I stopped caring pretty quickly.
I cannot recommend this book enough.

tl;dr? Ms Miller, you are a goddess. Thank you for giving this book to the world. ★★★★★

Join me at tumblr and goodreads. Twitter on request. 
Follow me on bloglovin'

Welcome ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls to the madness of my mind.

Hi.

I've been dubious about doing this for a while, but I've finally decided to really give this a go. Just why, I shall explain shortly. Firstly, a brief introduction.

Not my favourite photograph, I'll be honest, but boy, it's recent!

My name is Laura and I'm a fourth year Evolutionary Biology at Edinburgh University. For as long as I can remember, I've not wanted to be a biologist. No, seriously, it was never my dream or my goal. I'm one of those people who hasn't really been oriented towards the future until it came knocking when I was 17 and told me to make some choices. Biology it was and shall be.

I was educated prior to this abroad and therefore spent a lot of time in a country that wasn't mine. A country where they didn't speak the language I spoke. It meant that, no matter how much I'd love movies and books as a child, they became my passion while I was apart from them. I read everything and anything and I watched tons of movies. I became a spectre at my local cinema and I own more books than most people my age.
The reason I've finally, at 21, decided to try the bloggingsphere is due to reviews and the art of reviewing. I'm tired of buying books or watching films that I neither like in the end or waste money on because they are too difficult to begin. I want somewhere where I personally can tell you the truth about something and feel that that may help someone avoid wasting their time/money on it. Yes, I'm contributing to a planet of impatient people, I'm aware. But sometimes, especially with books, that what's needed. You invest so much time into the written word to feel let down at the end.

That's what I want this blog to be about.
I plan on reviewing one book and one movie each week. Given the sheer volume of material, it's possible the books will be older than modern (because with my final year approaching, I cannot read a book a week, despite how hard I always try) and the movies might be re-watches for some people. But that doesn't mean I won't try and be both frequent and honest with my posts.

I will take any recommendations and any requests assuming I can get hold of either for a price I can afford. I'm both broke and a full-time student; cash isn't always liquid.

Right, are you ready to begin?
Welcome.

You can find me at tumblr or goodreads. I have a personal twitter account which I will allow you access to if you ask me first.

Follow my blog with Bloglovin