Film Preview: Palo Alto


So, I have a confession to make.

About two years ago, my friend and I became obsessed with James Franco.  How could you not, right?  He’s got a PhD, about 17 Masters (give or take), he was nominated for an Oscar, and he’s so attractive he can pull off the ‘stoner with long, greasy hair look’.  Considering it’s not the 90s, that’s saying a lot.

Anyway.  So this friend ended up buying us matching t-shirts with his face on it.  Glorious, I know.  And granted, I never actually wore it in public, because it may have caused teenage girls to lose their shit and attack me, after being confused by the sensory information (am I James Franco?  But that’s his face!).  That, and let’s be honest, it’s pretty embarrassing to have a t-shirt with a celebrity’s face on it.  Kinda like those people who were still wearing Team Edward t-shirts when the last Twilight movie came out.  Awks.

So during this, somewhat dark, period of my life, I tried to get as much Franco as I could.  I watched old Franco and new Franco: Whatever It Takes, Never Been Kissed (yes, he has a cameo appearance in it.  And yes, I was so enthralled I focused on him over Michael Varton.  Now do you understand the extent of this issue?), Pineapple Express.  I watched Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which wasn’t as awful as it sounds.

I even watched Howl.  And then pretended I was into Beat poetry and that I actually cared who Allen Ginsberg was.  For the record, I don’t care about Allen Ginsberg.  And I didn’t then.

However, I did draw the line at 127 hours, because regardless of the actor, I’m not going to watch some guy hack off his own arm.  Ew.

And then I found myself in a pickle.  Because ol’ Franco was off getting his 48th Bachelor’s degree, or teaching a film subject at NYU or something and he wasn’t releasing any movies.  So I was forced to hunt through the Franco archives.  It wasn’t pretty.

Oh, sure, Freaks and Geeks is fantastic, but aside from that, there was a reason he wasn’t famous until Spiderman.  James Dean?  Probably the top 15 worst movies ever.

And then, I actually went out and bought his book, Palo Alto.  And as much as I tried to tell myself it was good, it wasn’t.  His writing was subconscious, superficial and ‘pretend-hipster’ (a term I just made up then, but if you’re from Melbourne I think you know what I’m talking about).  It was teenager angst on a new level, but without the class or the writing ability of Salinger or even Perks of a Wallflower.

So, slowly, I became to realise that Franco was a bit of a douche.  Actually, a lot of a douche.  He played a fictionalised version of himself, Franco, on General Hospital.


And then again, in In The End.


And he’s been known to create ‘non-visual art’ which is basically art that doesn’t exist, but is described in detail on a sheet on paper and the person has to envision the art themselves.  Personally, I would pay ‘non-visual money’ for this, but it sells for thousands and thousands of dollars.


He butchered The Great and Powerful Oz, and then he based his next character off K-Fed.  Which is not only horribly out-dated, but also…


In saying all this though, he has a new movie coming out, based on the previously mentioned book, Palo Alto.  Granted, he’s playing a sleazy teacher who hits on Emma Roberts, which hits a little too close to home since he recently chatted up a 17 year old on Instagram (and not even in a nice way.  He was all ‘I’ll get a hotel room’.  Bleurgh.  Take her out for a drink first, Franco.).  But I still want to see it anyway.  Because it actually looks better than the book (thank goodness), but also because Emma Roberts looks like she is playing a role that involves actual acting and nuance on her end.  So hooray.

Plus, creepy as it is, her and Franco would have beautiful babies.  And if they got together in real life, hopefully he’d stop hitting on minors.

Check out the review here.  Oh and let me know if you have had any embarrassing celebrity crushes.

PS I ended up ‘losing’ the Franco shirt.  Not only did it end up discoloured and gross (such an adequate metaphor), but it probably would have creeped out Paul when I wore it to bed.


Book Review: Hell’s Angels


Hunter S. Thompson, potentially the very first ‘gonzo’ journalist, is in full force in his ‘non-fiction novel’ (sorry Capote, I stole that one from you), Hell’s Angels.  After living and riding with the notorious Hell’s Angels gang for over two years in the sixties, Thompson can well and truly say that he put his blood, sweat and tears into this book.  Literally.

Though the Hell’s Angels gang is synonymous with bikies in today’s culture, in the 1960s they were considered a class of their own – a new breed of unfathomable outlaws, whose dastardly deeds knew no bounds.  Though there were a few hundred of them, mostly scattered around the state of California, the media turned them into a spectacle – a menace to be reckoned with, to be feared, and to be loathed.

Suddenly, this group of bearded misfits, most who weren’t fit for work, became infamous, seemingly overnight.  In certain crowds they could sleep with whomever they wanted, trash whatever they felt like trashing, and always riding across the state like a large plague of locusts, the ferocious sounds of their Harley Davidsons alerting townsfolk of their inevitable arrival.

At the height of their notoriety, journalist Hunter S. Thompson infiltrated their gang; and though he was largely considered a ‘dirty pap’ who wasn’t fit to wear their colours, he was able to ride alongside them and witness their terrible antics firsthand.

Not that Thompson was exactly a wallflower himself.  Well-known as a drinker, smoker and big fan of the psychedelic drugs, Thompson, though not murderous nor unruly, had the personality to fit in with this big, boozing group of men.  And though Thompson may have contributed to their over-bearing portrayal in the media, he also completed the task that many other newsman failed – he uncovered the legend and showcased who the Hell’s Angels really were.

I’m currently studying Publishing at uni and it’s really quite excellent because it essentially gives me an excuse to read more books (like I needed one).  In one class we’ve basically been talking and reviewing feature writers-turned-authors.  And while I’ve read some of Wolfe and Capote’s stuff before, I’ve never picked up anything by Thompson.  And after talking about him in such detail, well, I was intrigued.

What I loved about Hell’s Angels is that well I, alongside probably everyone else, know about their infamy, I’d never really considered who they really were.  And Thompson manages to capture this perfectly.  Well on the outside they come across as terrifying, burly men – all tattoos, piercings and facial hair, Thompson brings them down a notch in a few short words – “These guys are losers”.  An interesting concept, but one that I could agree with.

While the idea of gangs, motorcycle or otherwise, are terrifying, they’re also made up by a group of (usually) men who no longer belong in society – whether it’s because they aren’t smart enough, social enough, or downright straight enough.  And while they have the ability to scandalise a single person, they’re essentially outlaws for a reason – they don’t fit in.

In saying that, Thompson also refuses to pack any punches.  Some of the things these men get up to are downright appalling.  One man was known for pulling out the teeth of unsuspecting people, including a waitress who refused to serve him coffee.  Most don’t understand the concept of rape, fidelity or even the respect of the opposite sex.  Stories abound of women who have latched onto the gang in any means possible, in essence becoming a mound of flesh available for any Hell’s Angels who gets a bit horny.

Perhaps most interestingly though, and one that shows why gonzo journalism is considered so impressive, is that Thompson is able to write from the perspective of a Hell’s Angel.  It’s not just about getting in there and witnessing their actions, but to actually communicate how it is that they think and feel.  And ironically, as perhaps is the case with any individual who doesn’t belong in society, they feel wronged.  They love being a Hells Angel for the fame and the fear associated with the name, but they don’t like getting pulled over solely because they’re wearing their colours.  Or getting over-charged for beers.  Or unable to hold a steady job because they want to have a flowing beard and hair.

Hell’s Angels for me was a fascinating and absorbing read.  Though Thompson was supposedly high as a kite for the majority of this book, he writes in a succinct, emotionless way, allowing the actions and voices of the characters to tell the story themselves.  It’s incredible that Thompson is ‘just reporting’ real events, because in the same way as other ‘non-fiction novels’, it’s easy to become absorbed and to feel as though this happened in a different world.

Then again, it was the sixties, so it kinda was, wasn’t it?

Oh, and just for the record, yes, Thompson did end up getting beaten to a pulp after the book came out.

Have you read anything by Hunter S. Thompson?  Have you heard of gonzo journalism?  What do you think of the idea of a feature article the length of a novel?  Let me know!

hell's angels by hunter s thompson

Hell’s Angels – (image taken from

Book Review: The Wrong Girl


Zoe Foster’s latest book, The Wrong Girl, may possibly be her best yet.  Sure, I’ve only read one of her other books, but The Wrong Girl was definitely better than The Younger Man.  Same sort of concept, light and fluff chick lit, but with a lot more soul.  Which is a lot more than I could about other girly books I’ve read recently.

Plus, I have to be a little bit biased.  Not only is Zoe Foster Australian, but she’s married to (and expecting a baby with) the delightfully funny Hamish Blake.  So I just assume if she’s with him then she has to be a nice person.

Lily is a 29 year old woman who isn’t having much luck with men.  Basically, she thinks they’re all dogs and she doesn’t want to have anything to do with them.  So she decides to have a man break – no men for three months.  No flirting, texting, dating or sleeping with men.  No way.

Luckily for her, her beautiful model roommate, Simone, goes in on the pact with her to stop dating men.  Unfortunately for Lily, a hot new chef Jack has started at her work, and not only can he cook, but he’s a nice guy too.  Uh-oh.  So not only is Lily struggling to get a promotion at her work, but she’s also struggling against her feelings for her co-worker.  Double uh-oh.  Simone breaks the pact…to start dating Jack.

Damn, can a girl just catch a break?

The Wrong Girl has all the ingredients for a light-hearted chick lit and Zoe Foster nails all of them.  Sure, it is absolutely ridiculous that Simone and Jack would randomly meet in a city the size of Sydney, but hey!  It’s a chick lit, let’s go with it.  And really, would Lily be quite so cavalier about her best friend dating her crush – particularly since her best friend is a model, which already has to hit at the self-esteem.

And sure, every reader knows how the book will finish from the third chapter onwards, and Lily gets everything nice and tidy in her life with about two pages to spare, but so what?  We’re in chick lit universe, where all the men are cute, all our girlfriends are the best, and we wear fashionable clothes.  Politics?  Pffftt!  World news?  Pah!  Financial woes or anything that couldn’t fit into a 20 minute sitcom?  Get outta here!

Foster has written a book that is essentially fun.  And even better, I loved Lily’s character.  Sure the novel essentially revolves around her mooning over a man, but she’s still a strong, independent woman whose interested in her career.  So take THAT 90% of all chick flicks floating around out there.

Foster’s writing is witty, sharp and has a strong pace.  I wouldn’t say she is my favourite writer, and there are areas that she needs to improve (mostly chunks of Lily’s life seem to be pushed to the side when convenient), but she essentially captures the style and essence of a great, fun read.

As long as you go into reading The Wrong Girl completely understanding that you won’t strain a single brain cell, then you’re in for a fun time.  And honestly, the cover is of a girl holding pink balloons, so if you expect anything else, then you’re an idiot.

Also, I may add that the ‘literary masterpiece’ Heart of Darkness took me over a week to read (it was less than a hundred pages), while The Wrong Girl took two days.  Which really says a lot more than a review ever could.


Have you read anything by Zoe Foster?  Have you read The Wrong Girl?  Are you a fan of chick literature?  Let me know!

the wrong girl by zoe foster

The Wrong Girl – (image from

Book Review: Heart of Darkness


Heart of Darkness.  Considered one of the greatest novels of all time.  In my view, considered one of my biggest failures of all time.  That’s right.  Despite only being a mere 100 pages, I walked away from Heart of Darkness with absolutely no clue as to what I’d just spend the past fortnight reading.  Joseph Conrad, you win this round.

As a general rule, I would say that I’ll give anything a shot and I’ll read most any book – if it’s in English, that it.  While there has definitely been books that I’ve struggled through, or had trouble with the writing, usually by the end of the novel I’ve not only grasped the storyline, the nuances and the writer’s style of writing, but I’ve actually come to enjoy it.  Brideshead Revisited and Madame Bovary are two examples that spring to mind.

Furthermore, if I set out to read a book, then usually I’ll finish it.  Granted, I only got halfway through the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but in my defence, I was 11.  Also, even at age 11 I understood that life was too short to waste on boring medieval books with lots of songs.  Bleurgh.

And up until Heart of Darkness, I could wholeheartedly say that there had only been two other books that I had read, and finished, without actually knowing what was happening in them.  The first was Tess of the D’Urbervilles when I was 17 (where I managed to completely miss the whole rape scene), and the second was James Joyce’s The Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, which was so stream-of-consciousness-like that I zoned out for entire pages at a time.

Woefully, I now add Heart of Darkness to the list.

In the barest of details, Heart of Darkness is told from the narrative perspective of Charles Marlow, who tells of his adventures of an ivory explorer down the Congo River in Africa.  Along his journeys, thanks to countless whisperings, rumours and stories, Marlow becomes obsessed with the elusive Mr Kurtz.  Kurtz, a white European man with the high-standing role at the Inner Station, is both feared and hated – with most thinking he is not worthy of his position.

As Marlow journeys along the river, he and his crew are almost killed by a group of savages, who in turn, are protecting Mr Kurtz, who has become delirious with illness.

From what I could gather, when I wasn’t confused by what was going on, Heart of Darkness explores the ideas of racism, and what it means to be a ‘savage’.  Can someone who is white and middle class have the same savage nature as black men in the Congo jungle?  What causes a man to spiral into insanity?  What drives certain men to commit horrific crimes – and what does it say if they look and act like ‘one of us’?

Look, in terms of reviews, this one has probably been my worst.  If I could give you a more in-depth review I would.  Overall though, I don’t think I’d recommend this book.  While I have nothing against Conrad’s writing, and it is quite well documented that he is admired by a huge number of readers, sadly I just wasn’t able to get into Heart of Darkness.  Whether because of the age of the writing, or the excessive symbolism, I don’t know, but regardless of the time and place, I need to be involved in a story to enjoy it.

If you’re a big fan of classic literature and you’re not deterred by a tricky writer, then by all means I’d give Heart of Darkness a go.  But if you’re after an absorbing storyline, or even a dose of high brow literature, then there are many, many other books to choose.

Have you read Heart of Darkness or anything by Joseph Conrad?  Could you understand the storyline?  Let me know!

heart of darkness by joseph conrad

Heart of Darkness – (image taken from

Book Review: The Nazi and the Psychiatrist

Leave a comment

Sounds like a bit of light-reading doesn’t it?  Actually the full title of this delightful book is, The Nazi and the Psychiatrist: Hermann Goring, Dr Douglas M. Kelley, and a Fatal Meeting of the Minds at the End of WW2.

If you think it sounds grim, it is.  And even if I didn’t think it sounded grim, reading it on vacation certainly cemented it for me.  Because apparently in Hawaii, every second person enjoys starting a conversation with someone they’ve never met, and asking about their opinions on the Nazi regime.  Truly, it was my own fault.

Written by Jack El-Hai who is a well-known journalist in the United States, The Nazi and the Psychiatrist follows the true events following the end of WW2.  After Germany had surrendered, the US essentially gathered up all the big wigs in the Nazi party who were still alive, and put them on trial.  Where they would be most probably all be hanged for their crimes; which ranged from Nazi propaganda, to organising and leading the concentration and death camps.

However, before they were put on trial army psychiatrist, Dr Douglas M. Kelley, was brought in to individually assess each man to determine if he were criminally sane and able to stand trial.  However, Dr Kelley also had plans of his own; to determine if each man shared a ‘Nazi gene’ or some personality flaw that explained why they were able to do such terrible deeds.  Most importantly, Dr Kelley was interested in evaluating Hermann Goring; the originally successor to Hitler, the former mayor of Prussia and the highest-ranked man standing after the ‘big three’ had suicided (Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels).

Of course, especially in psychiatry, nothing is ever as clear as it seems.  Not only does Dr Kelley fail to find the ‘Nazi gene’ but he finds a friend in Goring and despite the terrible deeds that he has committed, begins to understand how the Nazi thinks and acts.  Uh-oh.

I love reading about Nazi Germany.  I don’t know what that says about me, but honestly, the more I read, the more interested I become.  Fiction, non-fiction, creepy psychology books that get a little too close to comfort, they all seem to fascinate me in a way that other books on history do not.  And particularly since I visited Germany last year and was able to visit a concentration camp personally, I feel that not only is it interesting to read about WW2, but it’s also necessary: not only do the victims deserve to be recognised, but we can begin to understand why and how they occurred.  As a result, that’s what led me to picking up this book.

While at times The Nazi and the Psychiatrist was a bit slow, for a non-fiction novel, it was surprisingly succinct, personable and easy-to-read.  Furthermore, El-Hai set out the series of events in such a way that, at times, it almost read like a thriller; what happens to Dr Kelley?  Will the men on trial be hanged for their crimes?  What makes a man become a dictator?

The relationship between Dr Kelley and Goring is particularly pivotal, because not only does it show how ‘evil’ isn’t necessarily black and white, but it also shows that individuals of wildly different backgrounds can still have a great deal in common.

While Dr Kelley was searching for a ‘Nazi gene’, some kind of indicator that shows why someone would commit such horrific crimes against humanity, not only was he unsuccessful, but he also learned a terrible truth; most ‘evil’ people share personality traits the very same as you or I.

Though certain individuals Dr Kelley evaluated suffered from narcissism and megalomania, most shared the same traits as Dr Kelley himself; intelligence, pride, and a desire to reach the top of their professional field.  In short, many qualities that any successful workaholic would admit to.

Though each man deserved to be punished for their crimes, and the blame does still reside on them, possibly the most harrowing fact that I learnt from The Nazi and the Psychiatrist is that most Nazis, including Goring, weren’t anti-semantic; they simply used propaganda against the Jews to fuel their political campaigns.  While it’s terrible to think that six million people were killed essentially because they were scape-goats, it’s an even scarier possibility when you consider an entire nation was happy to hate a race simply because their government told them to.

Though the Nazi and the Psychiatrist only scratches the surface of Nazi Germany and the on-going effects of the Nazi regime, it is an insightful book that raises questions that may not have occurred to many readers.  Not only is it thought-provoking, but it also delivers the facts without sugar-coating either the realities of the war, or even the personality flaws of the protagonist and ‘hero’, Dr Kelley.  Though it is a dark book, and it may be confronting to some, if you’re interested in WW2 or psychology, then I’d recommend giving this book a read.

Have you read The Nazi and the Psychiatrist?  Are you interested in WW2 or history-related non-fiction?  Let me know!

the nazi and the psychiatrist by jack el-hai

The Nazi and the Psychiatrist – (image taken from

Film Review: The Monuments Men


If you combined part of the cast of Ocean’s Eleven, with part of the cast from Roseanne, and threw in Cate Blanchett, you basically have the cast of The Monuments Men.  When considering that it’s directed, produced and written by George Clooney, it’s easy to tell, that if you make good with ol’ George, he’ll make good with you.  I.e. he’s basically the new Christopher Nolan.

So I worked out that it’s been almost three months since I’ve been to the movies.  Crazy, right?  Since it’s actually one of my favourite things to do (I don’t know if ‘sitting around and watching a movie’ counts as a hobby).  But at the start of the new year, Paul found a way to illegally download a whole bunch of films.  Which is highly illegal, I know.  Except, karma on us, the TV doesn’t support the hard drive.  Thus, no movie nights for us.

So, to break the drought we finally saw The Monuments Men, a American-German war film starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, John Goodman, Cate Blanchett and a whole bunch of other actors I won’t mention because then it destroys my Ocean’s Eleven/Roseanne theory.

The Monuments Men is loosely based on a true story.  Essentially, during World War Two, a group of men were assigned a mission by the United States where they would go into war-torn Europe and try to salvage well-known and influential art pieces that were either threatened to be destroyed as a casualty of war, or were simply stolen by Hitler.

Fun Fact: Hitler actually wanted to be an artist, but he was rejected.  Then, he wanted to be an architect, but he failed at that too.  So he settled to be the greatest dictator known to men.  So whether he stole the art because he had the mentality of ‘You don’t want to look at my art, you can’t look at any art!’ or was simply like ‘More precious things I can add to my list, after human lives and countries’, I think it’s safe to say that it was just another example of what an awful, awful human being was.  But I digress.

What I liked about The Monuments Men is that it’s a pretty awesome true story.  While they did cheese it up, add a bit of a romance, tears etc etc, American patriotism, bit of racism towards the Russians and so forth, at the heart of it it was pretty fantastic that a group of men went into the war to actively steal back priceless pieces of art.  Because (if the film is correct) Hitler had orders to have it all destroyed if Germany lost the war.  Which, obviously, they did.

However, the one thing about the storyline that didn’t sit well with me was the bravado that they attached to it; aren’t we amazing, saving pieces of art?  And while it definitely was an influential role that they played, and thank goodness it wasn’t something else that was lost to war, it does strike a bit of a sour note when you consider the millions of people who were struck in concentration camps at this time.  While that obviously wasn’t the focus on the film, it does help to put things in perspective.

Also, why the cast was impressive, and overall the acting and directing formidable, overall the film felt a bit slow, but also a bit heartless.  Not in a ‘you heartless bitch!’ kind of way but more of a ‘meh’ sort of way.  Each of the actors usually shine when they’re in their element, but they all kind of retreated, as though the presence of so many other well-known actors made them lazy.  And though it was an impressive storyline, I did find it a bit tedious at times, particularly when they really hammed it up for that cameras (oh America is amazing, and so forth).

Overall, it was enjoyable night out at the movies, and it was interesting to learn something new about World War Two.  I’m particularly interested in art and Nazi Germany history (morbid, I know), so in that regard it was a really interesting film.  However, I did think there was something lacking, and considering the line-up, not to mention the material they were working with, I felt that it fell a bit flat.

Have you seen The Monuments Men?  Did you know about the history of art during World War Two?  Let me know!

Book Review: Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married


About two weeks ago, I was in a mood where all I wanted to read was chick lit.  No Steinbeck or Orwell.  No murder mysteries.  Nothing other than a ball of fluff novel that essentially revolves around the sexist and somewhat demeaning plot line of a woman in search of her ‘dream man’.  Sure, it goes against most things I stand for (the main one being that a woman can actually survive without a love interest), but that’s what I was after.  Plus, I was sick.  And we all know that when we’re sick our brain begins functioning at about 50%, and thus, it was completely justifiable.

The book I ended up going for was Marian Keyes’ Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married.  Not only is Marian Keyes supposedly a renowned ‘chick lit’ writer (if such a thing exists) but it was also essentially a story that involved a woman searching for her dream man.  Nothing about her career, her friendships, her urge to travel.  In short, the mindless fluff I was after.

So no wonder I was underwhelmed.

Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married follows the story of Lucy, a mid-twenties girl in London who finds out from a fortune teller that she will be getting married within the next year.  Lucy, who doesn’t even have a boyfriend, thinks that this is preposterous and immediately dismisses the idea.

Yet, then she meets Gus; a man who is cute, funny and a little odd.  Sure, he comes across as an alcoholic, smells like a bin and apparently doesn’t have a job, but he’s still Lucy’s dream man.  And then, there’s the other guys that pop up in Lucy’s life.  There’s the blind date, the cute new guy at work, and perhaps even Daniel, her handsome best man friend that she’s never considered as anything more.

Essentially, this is the bulk of the novel’s plot line, although Keyes does try to lift up a notch on the ‘meaningful’ ladder by adding in Lucy’s alcoholic father into the mix.

In theory, this should have been a fun read, and while on one level it was, for the most part it was just really bad quality.  Not only was the storyline somewhat slow for a chick lit, but much of it seemed unrealistic.  Why does Lucy hang out with people who are so awful to her?  Why does Daniel date her roommate if he’s apparently interested in Lucy?

Then there was the dismissiveness of all other factors of Lucy’s life aside from her search for a man and her family issues.  Sure, it’s fun if that’s the central plot, but it was fairly depressing that Lucy was constantly going on about how much she hated her job, and never actually did any work, yet didn’t do anything to change that.  Or that she was terrified of her roommate, Karen, yet she never stood up to her, or even better, just move out?

But above everything else, I just thought the characters were all quite awful, and not in a comedic way.  Gus (who in my mind looked identical to Bret from Flight of the Concords, don’t ask me why) sounded like a drop-kick from the get-go, and even worse, continually treated Lucy badly.  While she eventually stands up to him, it doesn’t seem like a fantastic message to send to your readers: better to have a terrible man, than no man at all, ladies!

Then there are Lucy’s friends.  All the girls at work don’t seem to particularly like her, some of them sleep with her boyfriends, and the rest are either excessively controlling, stupid or overweight.  And while we’re on that topic, was it really necessary that Keyes describes the size of the character, Merida, every single time she featured in a scene.  Now that’s just nasty, not to mention alienating to a number of potential readers.

Even Lucy, the protagonist that we’re supposed to side with, to commiserate with, is a bit of a pain.  She hates her work, she hates her friends, she’s constantly moaning about her life, but doesn’t make any steps to change it.  She’s awful to her mother and she’s constantly childish and argumentative with Daniel, who somehow puts up with her anyway.

Overall, Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married was pretty average.  And not even in a standard ‘chick lit’ average.  I mean, ‘why am I even reading this rubbish?’ average.  I’m not sure if it’s just me that isn’t a fan of Marian Keyes’ writing because she is very successful, or I just managed to pick out the worst of all her novels, but I wouldn’t recommend this novel.

Have you read Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married or anything by Marian Keyes?  Are you a fan of chick lit?  Let me know!

lucy sullivan is getting married by marian keyes

Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married – (image taken from

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 445 other followers