“Big Little Lies” is highly addictive. The book is probably one of the best I’ve ever read, and the show is amazing. Great cast, great characters, good mystery etc. That being said, I have some random theories about BLL.
- I don’t think that Ziggy hurt Amabella. He seems to be a very kind, loving and friendly little boy. None of the evidence so far suggests that Ziggy would even consider doing anything like this. Plus, Ziggy is the only one being accused. Usually, in that case, it means that the person is innocent. Even though there is a slim possibility, I doubt Ziggy hurt anyone. I think the opposite is true–he’s being bullied too.
2. Celeste. In the novel, I thought Celeste was the best character. She was a little more multidimensional than the others. She’s great here too. I feel so scared for her in every scene she has with Perry. That man makes my skin crawl. The therapy sessions are also creepy, but well-acted. Especially the first and last ones. I really hope she leaves him before the series is over. As far as the mystery goes, she could be on either side of it. But I doubt it.
3. Jane. On the show, Jane is probably the character I sympathize with the most. Seeing her struggle with PTSD? Those scenes are certainly relatable because I’ve dealt with that too. For different reasons. The way it’s portrayed in the show is very realistic. I really hope that Ziggy is innocent because I don’t think Jane could deal with it. I’m rooting for her. It’s possible that she killed the victim in self-defense and she could be the victim.
4. Madeline. I actually like Madeline a lot. She’s the type of person who fights for what and who she believes in. She’s cute and funny. She is a really good friend to Jane and Celeste. A great mother. She has so many likable qualities to her. You’re almost willing to overlook the fact that she’s having an affair. Or that she’s in a petty war with Renata. Ed is an entertaining guy. In the book, he and Madeline were happily married. Why does there always have to be cheating? Happy relationships can be fun too. I don’t believe she is the victim or the killer.
5. Speaking of Ed, something is a little off. The comments he makes about other women. Taking pictures of them without their knowledge. People have always commented on the looks that he gave Abigail. Was it desire? Attraction? Or did the look mean nothing? Body language is weird and diffucult to interpret. Maybe the writers just want Ed to be a viable suspect in the upcoming murder. Or victim? Honestly, I don’t know how to feel about Ed. Is he just a nice guy who is just really weird? Or is a huge pervert? Kiler? No. Victim? Possibly.
5. Renata & Gordon. Their relationship seems to be the healthiest on the show. They’re both very angry and frustrated over Amabella being bullied. While I understand how Renata feels, I think she’s taking it too far. With each episode, the chances of Ziggy being the bully grow smaller and smaller. Amabella is terrified of her tormentor. This is about Amabella, not Madeline. And I think the feud between them is ridiculous. Entertaining but ridiculous. I think Gordon’s approach is better and more rational.
6. If I’m dealing with a jerk, I’d rather deal with one like Nathan. He knows he’s being an ass and isn’t hiding it. I hate how he isn’t taking Madeline’s concerns about Abigail seriously. I kinda that’s why Abigail moved in with him and Bonnie. He lets her do whatever she wants, probably out of guilt for abandoning her and Maddie. Both father and daughter are annoying.
7. Perry is a jerk times 100. I cringe every time he’s on the screen. He’s a monster and he’s never going to change. Celeste has a strong case of Stockholm Syndrome. People say that Perry hates himself for hurting his wife, that he feels guilty. I honestly don’t care if he does. He’s a horrible person. I think the whole point of that first therapy session was to trick Celeste into staying with him and he succeeded. He blames her for her own abuse. He knows what he’s doing and he doesn’t care. Plus, he turns their own kids against Celeste. I think if Celeste stays any longer, Perry is going to kill her.
8. Chloe. In a lot of ways, she’s a pint-sized version of her mom. I like how the writers fleshed out the child characters as well. (Most of them. We still don’t know much about the twins.). She seems so smart and intuitive and funny. I like her. I hope she isn’t the bully.
Now I have to reread the book for potential clues. This mystery just gets better and better.
I was fully prepared for this to be the best part of season 3. Episode 313, “It’s War” was easily the best episode this entire season, and I believed that nothing could top it. Nothing could top the masterpiece that was the finale of “How to Get Away with Murder”‘s first season. Turns out….I was right. Last night’s episode was the cherry on top of a disappointing season.
Let’s start with who killed Wes. It wasn’t Oliver or Connor. It wasn’t Bonnie or Frank or Laurel. Not even the Mahoneys. All of those would’ve made much more sense than having him killed by some stranger. I thought that Wes would leave the show in some heroic way. I was expecting Laurel to hunt down Wes’ killer and really make them pay. None of that happened last night. Wes died in a brutal and demeaning way…for no good reason at all! Worse yet, the hit was ordered by Laurel’s own father! Wes was screwed over in life and he was screwed over in death. I am so furious with Annalise and the rest of the Keating crew. Expect for Laurel, of course. How could they do that to Wes?! Turn him into some violent psycho killer?! All Wes did was protect the people he loved. He wasn’t a bad guy. He was obviously broken, but he was a good person. Probably the most human character on the show. He fought hard to make a decent life for himself. Life beat him up, but he didn’t stay down. Not until, yeah. That. He deserved so much more than this. And I guess I’ll have to use my Charmed approach–pretend this whole season doesn’t exist. After Prue died, the show just wasn’t the same. The same is true for Wes on How to Get Away with Murder.
All these months theorizing and looking for clues turned out to be a waste of time. If you wanted Laurel’s dad to be involved, you should’ve made him a more prominent character. You wasted too much time on Attwood, Meggy, and the whole “Under the Sheet” debacle. It turns out they were nothing but pawns and red herrings.
It’s a shame too. Attwood was probably the best villain the show’s ever had. I didn’t like her very much. But she was cunning, smart, determined and quick. She was a perfect adversary for Annalise Keating. I would’ve loved to see her in another battle with Annalise in season 4. But that isn’t going to happen. It turns out that Attwood was just a pawn in Denver’s game. Denver on his own probably would’ve made a good villain. But Attwood? Wow.
Speaking of wasted, what about Meggy? It was crystal clear from the start that her relationship with Wes wouldn’t work out. That Wes and Laurel would wind up together. She probably would’ve made a nice bad guy, but she was basically reduced to being the needy ex-girlfriend. And she wasn’t the only one. It would’ve been better if the character never existed, to be honest. Nice people don’t last on this show. Look at poor Wes….
Speaking of needy ex-girlfriends, what about Laurel? I hate what they did to her character. Where was the spunky, confident young idealist we met in season 1? The sweet seeming girl with a dark side? There was no trace of her in season 3. It was like she was some boy-crazy high school student instead of a serious law student in her twenties. The obsessive behavior over Frank would’ve made sense if she were pregnant then. I did enjoy the relationship between her and Wes. It was nice to see someone happy for once, and Wes definitely deserved happiness. This is another thing I hated about the season. Meggy turned out to be a nice yet distrusting person, but it would’ve been better if that relationship didn’t happen. I wish there were more sweet moments between Laurel and Wes. I wish the relationship began sooner.
I guess this should’ve been a big clue. Nobody is ever happy for more than 2 seconds on this show. It always ends at some point.
Wes Gibbins was probably the best character on the show, besides Annalise. I’ll miss him.
Okay, rant over.
There are these two movies. One is called “500 Days of Summer”. The other is called “La La Land”. Two different movies with one thing in common. Neither of the main couples wind up together in the end. It worked in one case, but not in the other.
First, let’s talk about “500 days of Summer”.
It’s about a man whose name is Tom and a woman, Summer. Tom and Summer had completely different views on love and life. Tom was a true believer in love, while Summer wasn’t. Later, in the film those views were reversed. I think the relationship helped them both grow as people, but it wasn’t right. They would never work out as a couple and we knew this before the opening credits. In order for a relationship (whether friendship, familial, romantic, etc.) to work, there has to be some common ground. There wasn’t enough of that with Summer and Tom. The movie couldn’t have ended any other way.
Then there is “La La Land”, which was one of the critical darlings of 2016.
It focuses on the love story and ambitions between jazz-obsessed Sebastian and aspiring actress Mia. What begins as mutual dislike eventually turns into love. Anyways, it felt like two of them were supposed to come together. I don’t think either of their dreams would’ve come true if they weren’t in each other’s lives.
I know that most people these days prefer the more modern ending. You know, the one where the couple’s relationship in films doesn’t work out. Why? Because that’s what happens in most relationships, right? Sometimes, that particular ending fits. You like the main couple, but later realize they weren’t good for each other. In the case of “La La Land”, however, it probably would’ve been better if they stayed together. The impression I got from the ending was that they could’ve made it work if they wanted to. But ultimately they–or just Mia–chose career and ambition over love. That’s pretty depressing. Going the nontraditional route could’ve worked too. They could’ve cut out the whole love story element and have them just be friends. They could’ve had neither of them fulfill their dreams, but stay together. This is probably the most likely scenario in real life.
Maybe I’m overthinking things, like usual. These were just some random thoughts. Okay, rant over.
Synopsis: Amy O’Hara, who is a coffee buyer, loses her job and becomes a full-time mom.
Things are not going well for Amy O’Hara. She just lost her job as a coffee buyer. Along with that, financial security. She has a loving, talented but lazy wannabe screenwriter husband at home who refuses to get a job and help her. And her two young children are a couple of spoiled brats. Amy is exhausted, overwhelmed and frankly clueless about being a mother. She was the breadwinner and Peter was a stay-at-home dad, so she never had to worry. Now worrying is all she does. How will she deal with everything?
Amy came across as very human to me. She was a smart, funny and relatable character and I enjoyed my time with her overall. The author did a great job outlining Amy’s transition from working mom to a full-time mom. This woman had no idea what she was doing! But she lived and learned and I felt like I was learning with her. (I have no kids, but hope to have some in the future.) Her honesty was refreshing, and her sense of humor amazing. I could see some similarities between the two of us. However, there were things that I certainly didn’t agree with. In fact, there were choices of hers that I hated. But I mostly found her quite relatable. Her kids were total brats most of the time. There were times where I couldn’t blame her for wanting to escape. Peter, Amy’s husband was written as a decent person overall. But he was annoying and immature, and I could easily understand Amy’s desire to smack him upside his head. I had a hard time understanding why he didn’t want to help out more financially or around the house. Why did”Daddy mode” stopped the moment Amy got fired? But his reasons became clearer by the end of the novel.
Have you ever of the saying “It’s funny because it’s true.”? That was often in the case of reading “Life After Coffee”. I’m not a mother (though it is an adventure I’d like to have someday.) But I could relate to some of Amy’s struggles. Who doesn’t have at least one frustrating family member? Amy struggling socially and not fitting in with the other women in the book? Yep, I could relate to that as well. Maybe that’s why I found the book–and her–to be funny.
Despite some blink-and-you-miss-it flaws, I thoroughly enjoyed reading “Life After Coffee”. It was realistic without being boring. It was fun, hilarious and refreshing. This was Amy Franken’s first novel. I hope she writes more. I highly recommend it. I give it a 9 out of 10. You can find it on Amazon.com and other online bookstores.