Movies with Meaning, by Brent Marchant, TGMN Movie Correspondent

Is Love Enough?

 

Is love enough to sustain a relationship? It can certainly provide a powerful bond to keep partners together, but is that sufficient to maintain that connection when other issues arise (e.g., day-to-day life challenges, disagreements and disconnects about fundamental goals and aspirations, cohabitation conflicts, a growing lack of sexual intimacy, etc.)? These matters often come to a head when certain turning points in life are reached, such as health issues or retirement, especially when each partner holds different views about what that next stage of life is supposed to be all about. And, as is becoming increasingly apparent these days, these questions impact both traditional partnerships and same-sex couples. So what’s to be done? That’s the central issue explored in the insightful new LGBTQ+ romantic comedy-drama, “Turtles” (“Les tortues”) (web site, trailer).

Thom Halford (Dave Johns) and Henri Janssens (Olivier Gourmet) have been partners for over 30 years, tying the knot when Belgium legalized same-sex marriage. They reside in a modest Brussels flat that they inherited from a late friend, who also left them his pet turtles, Topsy and Turvy, to care for. And, together, they lead what appears to be a rather stable, ordinary life. Thom, an English transplant and former drag queen, spends his days tending to their home and earning a modest income peddling second-hand resale merchandise at a nearby urban flea market. Henri, meanwhile, is a long-tenured police officer nearing the end of his career and preparing for retirement.

Given the longstanding differences in their daily routines, they haven’t always had the chance to spend much quality time together. So, because of that, Thom eagerly looks forward to the start of Henri’s new life, an opportunity that he hopes will enable them to enjoy one another’s company more than in the past. However, Henri doesn’t share that view. Since he’s had a long working life, he’s now ready to have some time to himself – and that plan doesn’t include Thom, who’s heartbroken by what he sees as his husband’s selfish decision. Granted, the couple has slowly been drifting apart for some time, but Henri’s desire to be left alone represents a big change. Thom feels as though the rug has been pulled out from under him, wondering just how far Henri intends to pursue this new path.

In an attempt to win back the affections of his partner, Thom takes steps to try and rekindle the romance between them, such as looking for ways to spice up their life in the bedroom. But, given that there’s been little going on between the sheets for the couple for some time, Henri responds by starting to sleep on his own in a separate room and even posting a profile with provocative photos on a gay dating app. Indeed, there’s nothing the least bit subtle or tactful about Henri’s behavior. And so, in turn, Thom responds with a flagrant level of audacity on par with his partner, such as picking up a prospective sex partner at a local bath house and bringing him back to their home in full view of Henri.

As the animosity between Thom and Henri grows, matters escalate further. Henri, for example, formally adopts his former police dog, Sherlock, bringing him back to their flat in full knowledge of Thom’s severe allergy to canine fur. In turn, Thom somehow “overlooks” Sherlock’s escape when Henri leaves the pooch home alone with him one day. From there, issues arise about ownership decisions about the home and what form of disposition it might take, a serious issue for Thom in light of his virtual lack of income and challenge-filled ability to secure housing of his own.

As time passes, it becomes obvious that Thom and Henri can’t continue carrying on like this. These circumstances thus prompt the question of whether they should seek a divorce. On the surface, that might seem like the most “practical” solution to their difficulties, but is the answer really that simple? As becomes apparent, there’s more going on beneath the surface here, as evidenced by Henri’s vociferous public outburst when he learns that Thom is selling their wedding rings at his flea market stand. If Henri is genuinely convinced that he needs his independence, then why is he so upset by Thom’s decision to dispose of the rings? Could it be that submerged feelings are still in play in this romantic war of wills? And, consequently, will divorce finally settle the issue? Things may not be as clear-cut as they seem.

What are Thom and Henri to do? Can their lawyers (Sandra Zidani, Laurent Bonnet) and the divorce court judge (Nathalie Laroche) effectively resolve matters for them? Or must they devise a solution of their own? But is that possible? After all, Thom and Henri have apparently been mimicking the behavior of Topsy and Turvy for quite some time, hiding in their own shells rather than confronting their circumstances and allowing the unaddressed bitterness between them to fester to the point that they have now reached. But, despite the open hostility that has surfaced between them of late, it’s also obvious that feelings of genuine love and affection are still in place, too. So which set of emotions will win out? That’s up to them and their beliefs about which feelings should take precedence, regardless of everything that has happened.

That’s important to bear in mind, given that our feelings are driven by our beliefs. And our beliefs, in turn, are significant, considering that they play a fundamental role in how our existence unfolds. Whether or not Thom and Henri have heard of this way of thinking is unclear. But, considering everything that’s at stake here, it would behoove them to get a handle on it and the beliefs that they hold. Failing to do so could carry tremendous consequences for both their material existence and their emotional well-being. Treating those considerations lightly by not examining the beliefs that underlie them could prove devastating, resulting in incalculable losses on myriad fronts. Indeed, much could be irretrievably lost by not taking a proactive approach to these matters.

Understanding what it takes to make for a successful relationship is no easy task, as many traditional heterosexual couples have discovered for themselves throughout the ages. But, for same-sex partners, who have a comparatively shorter history on this front (at least from a socially accepted and legally sanctioned standpoint), those who pursue these arrangements have considerably less experience to draw from. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community who has been involved in and a witness to a number of relationships over the years, I have seen for myself how many in my shoes have less practical familiarity with what enables these partnerships to succeed. Oftentimes there is a certain naivete that pervades the mindsets of those who engage in them, characterized by beliefs based on wishful thinking, that they’ll turn out just like the storybook romances in old Hollywood movie musicals, where “love always conquers all.” Those are nice sentiments, to be sure, but, in everyday life, they’re not especially realistic, a quality that, sadly, often dooms many gay relationships to failure.

In part this is because these partnerships are often based on beliefs that draw from conventional relationship models. Now, this is not to suggest that those templates have nothing to offer; they do. But, given the dynamics that often characterize same-sex partnerships, there’s frequently a disconnect between what makes traditional partnerships work and what’s in play in LGBTQ+ couples. And this often-contradictory difference is usually driven by the differing beliefs that underlie their respective natures. When comparing the two types of templates that go into them, same-sex partners may thus enter into their relationships with one set of expectations only to find themselves faced with another that differs in some marked ways. Is it any wonder, then, why they may not ultimately succeed?

When it comes to manifesting the existence we seek through the power of our beliefs, there are three impediments that can prevent them from turning out as hoped for, namely, fear, doubt and contradiction. While it’s true that the first two can play a part in scenarios affecting the success of same-sex partnerships, it’s the third consideration – contradiction – that often does the most harm. It’s as if those seeking to materialize these outcomes are putting forth intents that cancel out one another. It’s akin to saying that one wants something that’s both all red and all green at the same time. That, as is readily apparent, is patently unattainable. So imagine what can happen when partners put out relationship-based beliefs that fundamentally oppose one another. In light of that, then, does it come as any surprise when disillusioned romantics ultimately come to discover for themselves that love by itself, when viewed from a conventional standpoint, may indeed not be enough to make a relationship work?

To a great extent, this is the conundrum that Thom and Henri are now staring down. Even though they have been together for a long time and have even legally formalized the nature of their relationship, it’s obvious that they each want different things for themselves going forward, particularly now that they’re embarking on a new stage of their lives. For his part, Thom craves more quality time together, while Henri seeks a greater sense of independence. They each firmly believe in these convictions, too, thus bolstering their ardor for these fundamentally opposing viewpoints. And, in turn, their determined reactions to these contentious circumstances pointedly reflect their desires to hold on to their respective unwavering outlooks, not to mention their hopes to win over – or to punish – one another for failing to concur with their individual wishes.

The distancing that has apparently been growing between them for some time should have provided them with clues about the direction in which they were headed. For whatever reason, though, they chose to ignore it (most likely out of denial). That, too, is a belief, one to which they gave ample power and that has manifested in the conditions they now face. It’s almost as if they emulated the inherent nature of the turtles that they’ve been caring for all these years. Such attitudes may have kept the disconnect they now face at bay, but it also allowed it to grow ever stronger, leaving them with a much bigger problem to deal with than they would have faced if they had had the wherewithal to nip it in the bud.

To be sure, it’s not as if Thom and Henri don’t seek guidance from others. Thom routinely consults his best friend and confidante, Jenny (Brigitte Poupart), one of his fellow resellers from the flea market. He also renews ties with Madame (Vanessa Van Durme), a wise old soul and owner of the drag club where he once performed. Meanwhile, Henri confides in his friend Nadia (Hassiba Halabi) when he needs a shoulder to lean on. But, while it can be helpful to have sounding boards to call on, they’re not substitutes for the person one really needs to be conversing with, especially in critical times such as these.

So why didn’t Thom and Henri act sooner? That’s hard to say, but perhaps it has to do with the random element that has also figured into the bumpy unfolding of this situation: their love for one another. As this story reveals, regardless of whatever animosity may now have arisen between them, it’s also obvious that the flame of love has not been extinguished. Indeed, they wouldn’t have stayed together as long as they have if there weren’t something between them, even in the midst of their antagonism. That consideration – and the mutually held beliefs driving it – has been in place for a while, likely from a time long before their troubles began. And beliefs, as is often the case, are imbued with tremendous degrees of persistence and resilience. In this instance, those elements would appear to have survived whatever difficulties the couple has endured, and their continued presence has made the couple’s unfolding separation that much more painful to bear.

But is their love enough to salvage the relationship? That remains to be seen. If nothing else, it has certainly complicated matters, especially in an already-complex situation that neither partner seems to be adequately prepared to handle. However, it could be just what’s called for if there’s any hope to save a partnership that has managed to survive for decades. Perhaps it could be drawn upon as the basis for establishing a new foundation, one that supports the beliefs required to keep the partnership alive, one in which both partners’ needs are met while reaffirming the bond that has kept them together for such a prolonged time.

Therein lies the beauty of our beliefs: They can be rewritten to achieve virtually any outcome. The question here, of course, is, do we have the ability to envision a result where everybody wins? And, if so, do we have the courage and fortitude to proceed with bringing it about? Or will we remain mired in unproductive beliefs that fail to serve us? In the end, it’s all up to us and what we do with our beliefs. And that ultimately may do more for us than even love itself.

As noted previously, is love enough to sustain a relationship? That’s the question insightfully, honestly and sensitively explored in writer-director David Lambert’s bittersweet romantic comedy-drama about what can happen when “things change.” It thoughtfully examines the soul-searching and reevaluations that come with assessing a long-term partnership that appears to have run out of steam, including the open hostility that can emerge between spouses, much like what’s depicted in the dark comedy classic, “The War of the Roses” (1989). It also explores the challenges associated with the change of life that comes with retirement, much the same way as in the Swiss comedy-drama “Golden Years” (“Die goldenen Jahre”) (2022). The picture’s meticulously assembled, well-paced screenplay effectively examines all angles of this scenario through a narrative that’s touching, wickedly funny, heartbreaking and heartwarming all at the same time, effectively fleshed out by the superb performances of the film’s two leads and the adorable former police dog. This release is handily one of the best offerings I’ve ever screened in the LGBTQ+ cinematic genre, as well as one of the best movies I’ve ever watched about relationship discord, regardless of sexual orientation. “Turtles” initially played the film festival circuit, but it is now available on home media and for streaming online, an excellent viewing choice for Gay Pride Month.

As the old song “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do” so astutely observes, this release definitely follows suit when it comes to that sentiment and does so with an eloquence and realism rarely seen on screen. Couples of all kinds faced with issues like these should give this one a look, as it will ultimately likely provide more hands-on insight into how to address their problems than any course of marriage counseling could ever do. Like the creatures cited in the film’s title, the film draws attention to the issues often encountered in these circumstances – and candidly shows that partners can’t afford to avoid confronting them by simply hiding in their shells, especially when it comes to assessing whether love itself is ultimately enough.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

Nice Sentiments But Not Enough of Them

It’s incredibly frustrating to watch a film that has so much potential but ultimately fails to capitalize on it. Such is the case, unfortunateky, with one of the most heavily anticipated offerings of the summer movie season, “The Life of Chuck” (web site, trailer), from writer-director Mike Flanagan, based on the short story of the same name from author Steven King.

Told in three acts in reverse chronological order, the picture follows the life of Charles “Chuck” Krantz (Tom Hiddleston) and how his adult self emerged from a childhood of mixed experiences under the care of his paternal grandparents (Mark Hamill, Mia Sara) when he was unexpectedly orphaned at a tender age. It focuses on how an inquisitive preteen (Jacob Tremblay) with a love of and gift for dance ultimately (and largely inexplicably) settled for a mediocre life as an accountant instead, one whose existence was sadly cut short in his prime. His story thus provides the basis for soul-searching and introspective reflection among characters and audience members alike. To this end, the film seeks to address a variety of grand philosophical and cosmological questions, many of which are tied to regrets about the compromises we make during our lifetimes.

While the film certainly has its share of genuine passing flashes of brilliance (particularly when it comes to encouraging us to live our lives in accordance with our dreams and wishes), there aren’t nearly enough of them, and those that manage to surface are frequently underdeveloped, soft peddled, applied inconsistently (even in contradictory fashion) or significantly watered down. It’s almost as if the filmmaker lacked sufficient confidence in his own message, yielding a superficial, uneven, sometimes treacly treatment of its foundational principles. The fault in this primarily lies with a script that should have gone through one or more additional rounds of revisions to refine what it was attempting to achieve – its quest to make the truly profound statement for which it was striving. That’s somewhat understandable given that the screenplay sought to expand an original short story into a vehicle for a full-length feature film, far from an easy feat. Consequently, instead of presenting a meaningful, insightful saga, viewers are left with something far less sublime and eminently unsatisfying. Moreover, the screenplay’s shortcomings carry over into other aspects of the production, particularly the unnecessary inclusion of extraneous material while simultaneously undercooking other more relevant elements. And this, in turn, affects such other elements as the film’s underwhelming editing and sometimes-unimpressive performances (most notably Hiddleston, who ends up primarily playing a glorified walk-on).

To its credit, there are some noteworthy attributes, such as the positively mesmerizing opening sequence (as presented here, “Act Three”), which is truly captivating in holding viewer attention (it’s a shame the second half of the film doesn’t live up to the same quality as this). In addition, the picture’s delightful sense of whimsy, clever (if occasionally overdone) homages to other pictures (especially “Back to the Future” (1985) and “The Truman Show” (1998)), an excellent original score and commendable complementary soundtrack (despite its mind-boggling exclusion of what would have been a perfectly suited addition, one that Tom Petty fans will readily recognize), and a fine supporting performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor are other laudable strong suits. But, these assets aside, they’re not enough to make up for the picture’s more glaring shortfalls. In light of that, then, moviegoers looking for better screening choices that address material like what was intended here would be wise to view Tim Burton’s far superior “Big Fish” (2003) instead.

Had it been handled more adeptly, “The Life of Chuck” could have been one of the best-ever adaptations of one of King’s works and one of the best overall releases of recent years, a picture with much to offer audiences on many fronts. Regrettably, though, we’ll never get to see that film and the valuable wisdom it could have imparted for how we live our lives and how we can get the most out of them while we have the chance. The film is currently playing theatrically, but this one ultimately may be more worth waiting for when it comes to streaming online.

Recapturing the Past

Recapturing the past may be an enticing, seductive prospect, especially when it involves revisiting pleasant memories of days gone by. If nothing else, it can help to plug holes of loneliness and despair in our psyche, filling us with feelings of warmth and happiness. But is it realistically achievable or just wishful thinking? At most, it may only provide fleeting relief, not nearly enough to satisfy us for the long term or to resolve the source of the underlying anguish. However, glimpses of these emotions might be just enough to serve as a catalyst to help bring us out of our ennui and nudge us forward in search of new sources of joy. Such are the circumstances put to a trio of longing souls in the new heartwarming romantic comedy-drama, “The Ballad of Wallis Island” (web site, trailer)

When Charles Heath (Tim Key), a wealthy, eccentric but lonely two-time lottery winner living by himself on a remote North Atlantic island, furtively finances a command performance of his favorite but now-disbanded folk rock duo – artistic and onetime-romantic partners Herb McGwyer (Tom Basden) and Nell Mortimer (Carey Mulligan) – he hopes to relive fond memories of their once-popular musical style and recollections of the days he shared them with the love of his life. There’s just one hitch – Charles conceals more than a few important details about the true nature of his plan, revelations that end up taking the long-estranged musical duo somewhat by surprise.

Herb arrives first, having endured a challenging journey to Charles’s isolated island. This comes on top of the difficult time that Herb’s been experiencing for some time, most notably in his artistic endeavors. Since the breakup of the folk rock duo, he’s been experimenting with new musical styles, most of which have received only a tepid reaction at best. In fact, his primary reason for accepting Charles’s command performance invitation is to help him finance a new musical project, one that hasn’t been faring well during development.

Given what little he knows about the performance in advance, Herb expects to be putting on a show not unlike those staged at music festivals that were once popular at remote European locations back in the 1970s and ʼ80s. Needless to say, however, he’s stunned to learn that he’s the only act for an audience of one – Charles. When he finds out the truth, he’s ready to turn tails and leave. But then there’s the payout for the performance, money that he can’t afford to readily pass up if he wants his new project to go forward.

The surprises don’t end there, though. Herb soon learns that he actually won’t be performing by himself. Charles, it seems, has arranged for Nell to join him, a revelation that leaves Herb blindsided. The former artistic and romantic partners haven’t seen one another in years, and Herb has mixed feelings about this undisclosed and unanticipated reunion. That’s particularly true when Nell shows up with her adoring husband, Michael (Akemnji Ndifornyen), in tow.

This leaves Herb with a lot to think about. Given how everything has come together, he’s unsure if he can proceed with the performance. However, Nell seems comfortable enough with the idea that she’s able to convince Herb to go ahead with it. They begin rehearsing their old songs, which revives some old pleasant memories. What’s more, when Michael, an avid birder, embarks on an extended excursion to a remote part of the island, Herb welcomes his absence, providing him with an opportunity to find out whether the old spark between him and Nell extends beyond their musical connection.

As their stay on the island unfolds, old memories are rekindled, prompting Herb and Nell to question the choices they’ve made and whether they want to take another shot at what they once had. In the process, Charles becomes something of an impromptu, unwitting matchmaker living vicariously through his guests’ experience, enveloped in a cloak of his own bittersweet nostalgia, both for their music and the feelings it invoked in him and his lost love. But, considering how the lives of all three characters have changed over time, can the past be brought back to life, especially now that Nell is married, Herb has moved on to new artistic pursuits and Charles swoons (albeit bashfully and somewhat guilt-ridden) for the owner of the island’s general store, Amanda (Sian Clifford)?

What lies ahead for Herb, Nell and Charles? Will the revived happy feelings persist, or will they wash out to sea like the changing tides? There’s much riding on the feelings in play here, and the direction they take could easily lead to either joy or heartache. How matters unfold rests squarely with what the three principals believe about themselves and their circumstances. And that’s important given the role that beliefs play in the manifestation of our existence. It’s unclear whether Herb, Nell and Charles have heard of this school of thought, but, considering what’s at stake here, they’d be wise to wise up to what’s going on in light of how much they stand to gain – or lose.

Waxing nostalgic is something nearly all of us do from time to time, and it can make for a pleasant diversion, especially when times are tough or we feel the need to wrap ourselves up in a warm, comfortable emotional blanket. But making it a place where we’re tempted to take up permanent residence is something else entirely. Doing so can hinder – or even halt – our efforts at making forward progress, and that can ultimately prove stagnating and debilitating. Is that wise? When we think about it, most of us would probably say “no.” However, the lure of kinder, gentler, more fulfilling times can be quite strong, and we might actually fall prey to the belief that they can be the salvation to all our problems. But is that so? Might it be a trap filled with unfulfillable expectations fueled by overly unrealistic wishful thinking from which there’s no escape? That may especially be the case if we choose to heartily embrace those beliefs. The three principals in this story all appear vulnerable to the seductive draw of re-engaging with beliefs tied to events of the past and what potential consequences they could carry if adopted once again. Considering what’s on the line, this is belief territory into which they should all tread carefully.

For example, Charles, the orchestrator of this scenario, has created the circumstances that open up this line of probability for all three principals. He’s personally well off financially but lonely and can’t help but wonder what good all of that money will do if he has no one to share it with. Given that, he retreats into his pleasant memories of the past, savoring them and seeking to materialize the means of bringing some of it back, at least when it comes to reviving the fond recollections of the soundtrack of that time in his life. But is his belief that this will take away his anguish realistic? Or will it further ensnare him in the melancholy he’s obviously been experiencing for some time?

In creating this situation, Charles hooks both Herb and Nell as additional participants. And they, too, are experiencing somewhat related feelings and beliefs about their own circumstances. Herb, for example, may not have been fully aware of what Charles had in mind, but, once he discovers the truth, he can’t help but be sucked into it much the way his host has given himself over to it. Herb fondly remembers the time in his life when he and Nell were happy both artistically and romantically. He gave up a lot when they parted ways, and Nell’s presence is a painful reminder of that. And, as the story unfolds, Herb begins to believe that it’s a time of his life that he wishes he had back. Not only was Nell his love interest, but she was also his creative collaborator, one who helped him live up to his artistic potential (and the success that came with it), both of which seem to have eluded him ever since he went solo.

Nell is, by far, the most well adjusted of this trio. She has moved on in her life in the time since she and Herb split up. She has a new romantic partner in her life, and she’s found a new calling vocationally, having left the music business behind (despite her acceptance of Charles’s lucrative invitation to partake in his command performance). While it’s true that this experience has given her pause to reflect on her past and the choices she made, she looks upon this as an opportunity to engage in the aforementioned practice of waxing nostalgic. She might indeed enjoy this stroll down memory lane, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to move back there, either.

In this regard, then, Nell would appear to have the “healthiest” outlook on the situation. She seems to wisely grasp the notion that reflection may be useful from time to time but that we must also be willing to move forward in our lives when circumstances warrant, that we must cast off conditions that no longer serve us, that our existence is an exercise of discovering that nothing lasts forever, with everything being in a constant state of becoming. That’s sound thinking (and believing), particularly when we consider the alternative: Would we truly want to live a life of utter stagnation, where nothing ever changes? Most of us would likely find such a reality tedious and unfulfilling. To be sure, we all probably require a certain sense of stability in our lives; however, at the same time, we also wouldn’t want to lead a life of ever-shifting change, the result of which being a form of chaos to which we likely couldn’t adapt.

In addition to living her own truth, Nell also serves as an example to the others. Charles and Herb may find that following her lead isn’t easy, given their respective mindsets. However, her presence provides them with a belief template that they can draw upon for themselves – that is, provided they’re willing to do so. In the end, it’s up to them to decide whether they want to remain stuck or to make the effort to begin anew. That might seem like a fairly simple, straightforward choice, even if it’s not the easiest to implement. But, given that they can choose to form beliefs in whatever form they want, the power always resides with them – just as it does for all of us.

Recapturing the past may be an enticing, seductive prospect, especially when it involves revisiting pleasant memories of days gone by. But is it realistically achievable or an improbable fantasy? Indeed, memories may prove to be heartwarming to relive, but can they be effectively and authentically brought back to life? Those are the questions posed on multiple levels in the second theatrical feature from director James Griffiths. Based on the 2007 film short “The One and Only Herb McGwyer Plays Wallis Island,” this warm, touching, evenly paced alternative romcom sports a quirky vibe not unlike that found in the charming comedy classic “Local Hero” (1983) mixed with the romantic reunion storyline of “A Mighty Wind” (2003). These elements are effectively enhanced by the natural, unassuming performances of the three principals, the fine original songs composed for the film and gorgeous cinematography of the craggy, windswept Welsh island location. It’s truly rare these days to find a romantic comedy that provides viewers with elements that go beyond the prototypical heartstring-tugging emotions found in offerings like Hallmark Channel productions, but “The Ballad of Wallis Island” serves up more, giving audiences a lot to ponder beyond whether the often-predictable outcomes of such conventional releases will inevitably materialize. This is a great, if not entirely standard, date movie, one that’s sure to leave viewers with their own share of fond memories, even if they aren’t necessarily the kind one might expect. The film is available for streaming online. 

Love can be a funny thing. Even when we think it’s over, that may be far from the case. The old feelings can persist long after we think all is said and done. But are they? Situations like this are often revealed in unwitting reunions that occur long after the fact, leaving us with the conundrum of what to do next. Scenarios like this can nevertheless be useful by serving as benchmarks to see how much (or how little) we may have learned and grown in the interim. They can shed light on the beliefs we may have held at one time and provide us with a valuable opportunity to determine if we’d like to reconnect with them or to spotlight the ways in which we have evolved over time. But what’s most important in these situations is determining what we do next. Indeed, experiencing “a Wallis Island moment” can provide significant guidance about us, our lives and the directions we’d like to see them take. Just remember, though, that islands are places to visit, not to remain marooned.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

Copyright © 2024-2025, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.