Talia Gryphon-The Key Series Book 1 & 2

***Stolen Summaries***

Key to Conflict:
Meet Gillian Key-a paramortal psychologist who can treat the mental distress of nonhumans. And she's a Marine Special Forces operative who can get physical with them when the situation calls for it.

Gillian's two worlds collide when she travels to the Carpathian Mountains in Romania to counsel a dangerously attractive local master vampire-and becomes embroiled in a brewing turf war with the legendary Dracula.

Key to Conspiracy:
In northern Russia after a devastating earthquake, paramortal psychologist and Marine Special Forces operative Gillian Key helps break up a ring of child traffickers preying on newly orphaned children. But away from Count Aleksei Rachlav, the irresistible vampire she left behind, Gillian is vulnerable to the Dark Prince himself—Dracula—who would like nothing more than to use her as a pawn in his escalating war with Rachlav.
amazon

***Rant***

I made the mistake of buying Gryphon's first two books...mostly because the covers looked kinda cool.

They definitely smack of Laurell K. Hamilton (the later, crappier books)--which doesn't surprise me, as Gryphon has a quote from LKH on her books: "a unique idea in the paranormal genre." Yeah...the same quote on both books! That definitely says something. Something not good.

The Big Screamin' Comparisons to LKH's books:

-Almost every guy wants her.

-She has relationship/commitment hang-ups.

-Everybody is gorgeous (God, can I just have ONE average-looking vampire/elf/werewolf/were-whatever! And no, a half-scarred/half-gorgeous one doesn't count).

-She goes quickly from kick-ass to vulnerable. In a bipolar way.

-The secondary characters are also annoying, whiny, and sex-minded.

-The writing is sucky and jerky (yes, those are technical terms).

The main character is annoying, unprofessional...and quite frankly sucks as both a soldier (A commander?! Seriously?!) and a psychologist. Seems she doesn't know shit-all about either.

This is a "kitchen-sink" book. Gryphon throws in bits and pieces from her "research" (which I suspect was a 30 minute FOX docu-drama on some war) and from other paranormal romances that she's read in the past.

This is bad bad bad fan fiction.

Could this be one of LKH's secret aliases? I wonder...I just stumbled onto another review on another website. According to the scuttlebutt, Gryphon and LKH have a prior relationship.

"By BevQB: As I understand it, Talia Gryphon is a friend of LKH’s PA, Darla Cook, and that LKH was, to some extent, Talia’s mentor. I really don’t know the extent of the mentoring. I know Talia was supposed to accompany LKH to the RT Con in Daytona but couldn’t at the last minute because of work related issues (her PA had an accident at the last minute and also couldn’t accompany her)."
source

LKH has NO business in mentoring someone-she needs to focus on improving her own work.

***Judgement***

No thanks, Gryphon! I'm not buying the third and have plans to trade the books/give them to my dog to chew on.

Becoming a Bad Romance Author...

...takes a lot of hard, studious work and a serious dedication to...wait, that's not right...it takes a comfy bean-bag type chair and a big bag of Doritos. Just add an unhealthy gallon of root beer and you've got an instant bad romance.

And don't let little things like grammar, sentence structure, spelling, or plot get in your way. They are merely hurdles to leap over in the 100-meter dash of bad romance writing.

Sometimes I adhere to some of these rules, and sometimes to all at once. It's really up to you...just don't overexert yourself. An unhealthy mind equals unhealthy writing. And that's really the goal of this exercise.

My five basic rules to writing bad romances:

Basic Rule 1) Gender Stereotyping

Women are helpless, virginal, and emotional. They represent classic Disney herione types that are often waiting to be "saved" by a man.
On the other hand, we have the tomboy-ish prudish man-haters with a prickly personality that really conceals a fear of intimacy.

Men are scarred, revenge-minded, close-mouthed mystery-men. They often have secret, undercover, spy-hero jobs. Usually they had been burned by some horrible bitch of a wife/mistress/first love/mother in their past, and are now mistrustful of all womens' motives.

In more rare cases, the men in bad romances are bookish, nerdy and often distracted with some kind of weird scientific hobby (bugs, ancient history, breeding horses...). Sometimes these guys have hidden or suppressed bad boy tendencies. The women they attract end up admiring them for their logical minds and surprisingly hot bodies (though I think the latter has much to do with artistic license). Hot nerds? Is this possible? In a bad romance, anything is possible!

In whatever character type you choose, make sure they've both had something in their past that occurred to scar them for their present attitude--had a bad husband/wife, witnessed a murder/war, were left to bad/neglectful parents, stuck with gambling siblings who lose family fortune, or hold some kind of secret or coveted treasure.

The women, in particular, run across many similar themes: they were ugly (flat-chested and spotty) and became beautiful (bountiful and porcelain-like), were poor but made rich through eccentric relative/surprise financial success, work as governess/ladies' companion, or my personal favorite, end up being blackmailed into sex/marriage.

Coming up...Basic Rule 2): Setting a Romantic Rendezvous (or Finding Places to Hump)

This is a re-post from my old blog--I uploaded it again, 'cause I actually plan to finish it this time! : )

The Watchmen (2009)

***Stolen Summary***

An adaptation of Alan Moore's landmark comic book series, Watchmen is a story set in an alternative 1985, where the world is ticking closer to the brink of nuclear war, and a plot to eliminate a band of ex-crimefighters is instigated, but why? and by whom? It is up to two of those ex-crimefighters to investigate the plot that seems to go beyond the unthinkable. imdb

***Rant***

Great movie. I read the graphic novel a while back, so the exact details aren't sitting in my brain, but this movie was generally well-done. The editing, direction, visuals, cast...it was tight. Awesome opening credits showed the history of the heroes in freeze-frame style. Gory scenes and a disturbing/unsettling ending. Some philosophical debates will crop up amongst you and you friends about the whole "ends justifying the means" argument, I will promise you that. This movie has an intelligent story, thanks to Alan Moore and enough action scenes to get your motor running.

The only thing I'm annoyed about is some of the comments I've been reading on the message boards on imdb. There are quite a few fan-boys and girls booing this movie on Alan Moore's behalf. I think that's a load of crock.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Alan Moore himself sell the rights to his graphic novels? They way I'm reading some of his responses is that like he's making himself out to be some kind of victim, the artist who's been taken advantage of...

But if he was not satisfied with the contracts/negotiations and screenplay adaptations that the movie producers presented to him, he could've pulled out...isn't that the case? He could've said "Fuck you, this isn't my vision" and left. However, he decided to sell. If that was me, I'd be more pissed at myself more than anything. It's like closing the barn door after letting all the cows out. His umbrage is starting to wear thin on me.

I actually liked the movie quite a bit. It was well-done. And I liked The Watchmen novel. What is there to complain about? The nitpicky details comparing the movie to the novel? And they were minor, I believe. Look at adaptations like Max Payne (granted that was a video game, not a graphic novel adaptation). That was a train wreck. I thought I was watching Constantine. The errors were glaringly obvious.

The Watchmen movie was a very good modern adaptation of Alan Moore's creation. It was the type of movie that I actually had to go looking for errors and look HARD for them (if that makes any sense). I did the same with The Dark Knight. I find fanboys and girls do this quite a bit, but attach more importance to them as Errors and Mistakes. But for generally well-done movies, these things are of minor importance.

***Judgement***

Go see it now! And by the way, Dr. Manhattan's penis was perfectly acceptable. Though not as ginormous as some people are saying.

Coraline (2009)

***Stolen Summary***

A young girl walks through a secret door in her new home and discovers an alternate version of her life. On the surface, this parallel reality is eerily similar to her real life-only much better. But when her adventure turns dangerous, and her counterfeit parents try to keep her forever, Coraline must count on her resourcefulness, determination, and bravery to get back home-and save her family.
imdb

***Rant***

Saw it last night, and unintentionally in 3-D (and what I mean by that is that my fellow attendee and I found that out as we were buying the tickets). Usually I hate the very notion of 3-D. I remember seeing Superman Returns: An IMAX 3D Experience (2006) and it irritated me. The 3D wasn't for the entire movie, and there was a "warning" on screen to put your glasses on before it came up. Which was completely distracting throughout the entire movie.

BUT, for Coraline...it totally worked! I am now a convert...but perhaps only for animated flicks. The stop-motion puppetry is certainly out of this world and must have taken a freaking long time to put together.
I think this is going to be one of those love-it-or-hate-it movies for people. I have read some comments on message boards that say that this story is nothing new, that it's just another Alice in Wonderland, or that it was pretty boring.

I must disagree. Even though Neil Gaiman's story does take certain elements from other well-read stories (The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe came to my mind while watching the film), I still found it engrossing. And very surreal. And by that I mean that there was something very captivating but also very creepy about the film. Something Tim Burton is well know for--no coincidence that the director, Henry Selick, has worked with Mr. B in the past.

The story very much reminds me of an old fairy tale. Not the Disney kind, but the ones that were told to warn children from the dangers they may encounter (google fairy tale analysis). Nothing is ever what it seems...!

***Judgement***

It's hard to describe the wonderment of this movie, but your eyes will thank you later! Visually, it's stunning, and for that, you should definitely check it out.

It's like Neil Gaiman, Tim Burton, and a Cirque de Soleil choreographer got together to make a movie. And were all were smoking a little something while making it. And that's one crazy-ass threesome I definitely want to watch.

Takoyaki Japanese Restaurant

Location: 15041 Stony Plain Road, Edmonton
Phone: 780-484-1661
Area of the City: West End
Price: Moderate to high (around $15 and up)
Notes: Plentiful parking in a strip mall kind of fashion; take-out is offered

Opened around December 2008 (I think), they were still hanging up some blinds when I walked in last weekend after work. It used to be another Japanese restaurant, Sankyu, which I had frequented a couple of times over the years (it closed down due to staff shortage).

Takoyaki's decor is airy and bright. As soon as you walk in, various shades of grey greet you with occasional splashes of color. On on hand, the room is much more cheerful, on the other, it makes you aware of how close the seating really is. Well, okay, to be honest, it's not the seating that really bothers me, but the hanging beads that I walked into. They blocked my path as I was walking into the restaurant and I felt like a tool fighting through them. So, I guess you can either go around them or through them (I recommend the former).

I walked to the register in the back and glanced at the menu. The restaurant menu is similar to Sankyu's to a large degree with the few occasional differences. The take-out menu doesn't look like it's ready yet, but the owner has placed a number of Sankyu's old take-out menus (but with the old restaurant's name crossed out in pen and with their's written on top). That didn't strike me with a great deal of confidence. [Update: they're in the last stages of printing their take-out menus, thank god!]

I ordered a bento box which comes with two options. A choice of meat and a choice of side. I ordered the chicken and sushi. I also ordered a piece of egg sushi. I'm also a huge fan of toro (the fatty and tastiest part of tuna--also known as tuna belly), so I ordered a piece of it as well. Came to about twenty bucks altogether.
The take-out container comes with the dipping sauces needed for the meal. I usually check the box before I drive home, but I was tired from work and skipped it. Stupid mistake. Instead of chicken, I got beef (which I don't eat). Instead of sushi, I got tempura. And instead of fresh toro, I got canned toro-like fish. That's right, CANNED! It had the salty n' oily taste and texture that meat could only get from sitting in a can for a prolonged period of time.
So I skipped the beef and ate the rest in the container: rice, a mixed salad, and tempura. Nothing special. I could get the same quality food at Tokyo Express, and for much cheaper. It would have been nice if the salad wasn't a boring old mixed salad. Bean sprouts, shredded carrot, cucumber...any of these could've worked. The toro was not good. The egg sushi wasn't made correctly, I think. It's supposed to be a sweet egg omelette. It wasn't sweet at all. It tasted like regular scrambled eggs. And was slightly over-cooked. Disappointing.

***Judgement***

I'm not sure if I'd give this place another try. I am curious to try one of the combo dishes that is listed on the specials tower found on every table. In this case, it would be a sit-down meal instead of take-out. The tuna dice sounded good. But I think that's because an artful arrangement of adjectives in the dish's description.

Based on the take-out...




UPDATE: So I went back last week and decided to try some different dishes: the tuna dice, the korokee (potato croquettes), and the breaded oysters. The tuna dice were six small square pieces of seared tuna and rice. Other than an overdosing of lemon, they were pretty nice and tender. Hopefully, they'll make them larger pieces in the future. The two pieces of korokee were lightly breaded and tasted good without the sauce (which had a heavy balsamic vinagrette taste). The oysters were a little too breaded for my taste and slightly dry. There was a dab of something white on top that I couldn't figure out. Tasted like brie when I ate it with the oyster. I don't think it was brie. Anyway, I still stand by my "skip it", as there are better Japanese restaurants out there that have good dishes overall. However, I will give points to Takoyaki for creativity (of the tuna dice).

Taken (2008)

Hi all (three of you). Welcome. Lay back and enjoy yourself. And once you finish masturbating, please read my blog.

Taken (2008)

***Stolen Summary***

A former spy relies on his old skills to save his estranged daughter, who has been forced into the slave trade.
imdb

***Rant***

The movie had a good build-up; it pulls you into the story and makes you root for Liam Neeson's character, Bryan Mills, as he tracks down the sex slave traders and kills them. It was nice to see Liam take a more action-hero role. I was a little dubious in the beginning, but the more I watched, the more I was curious to see what would happen next.

His daughter Kim and her mother are pretty annoying characters. The daughter shows a complete lack of sense while travelling with her friend in France. You will repeatedly be saying "WTF??!!! Seriously??!!!"

And the mother, played by Famke Janssen, shows more concern for indulging her daughter's whims despite the dangers that her ex-husband, Bryan warns against. But, we see that living in a fabulous mansion with a rich new husband has muddled her brain.

Keep these people in mind, folks, 'cause I'm about to open a can of whoop-ass on them.

I will not really discuss the beginning and middle, as these parts are very typical Luc Besson (big-time French director well-acquainted with action sequences) and were engaging to watch.

The ending, however, SUCKS! I spent some time thinking about why it pissed me off:

After Bryan kills the "top bad guy," the scene quickly skips to the airport. How was Bryan able to get the French government off his back? That got edited out, I imagine. : )

Anyway, we're at the airport where the daughter runs all joyfully to her mother and her step-father gives Liam's character a manly "thank you" handshake/or half-hug, I can't remember which...but the manner of it was off.

The step-father's greeting/thanks to Bryan was given with a "thanks for lending me your hammer" casualness (not a "thanks for saving my step-daughter from a terrible sex-slavery ring).

The manner of it completely reduced the emotional and physical trauma that the daughter went through. Same with the mother! If that ever happened to one of my family members, I would have been loudly weeping, screaming, clutching at them...just gone crazy. There was waaay too much restraint.

Not only was there not enough emotion shown in that scene (from the daughter, the mother, and the step-father), but the APPROPRIATENESS of the emotions were off. The daughter is the best example here.

It is not very likely that a young teenage woman gets away from that trauma without any lingering emotional turmoil and inner scarring.

It is more likely that she will need some deep therapy from the whole experience, have possible personality changes/mood swings, night terrors, post-traumatic stress disorder...

But no, she's reduced to the same fun-loving teen we saw in the beginning of the movie...and she's going to train to become a singer! And we see this in another tacked-on scene.

Did the mom, step-father, and daughter learn nothing from this experience? Is the mom and step-father now able to say "NO" to their daughter's every little whim? Well, now she's going to a popular singer's house to learn how to sing. A singer who's had a stalker/knife-wielding weirdo come after her earlier in the movie (and will probably have more do so in the future). And they're encouraging their daughter become a singer.

And Liam's character encourages her to do so too...taking her right to the door. From one scary world into another scary world. Perhaps there was an unintentional (or intentional, who knows) message there. "No matter how much you try to protect your family, bad things will still happen." That's a pretty sucky message. Let's go with "Learn to say no to your children. Be a parent first, a friend after, not vice versa. Don't spoil your children." And etc...

On the home stretch now...

The problem with the the airport scene is Hollywood-ized: "Everything and everyone's okay and we're all happy.

The problem with the scene at the singer's house is that it could have worked...but over time. It was unnecessary to tack it on right after the airport scene. It also reduces the trauma that had just happened. Maybe the singer's house" scene could've used a "A year later..." super-imposed over it.

What would have been a better ending?

Liam's character dies. The whole family visits the grave dressed all in black. The mother and step-father stand aside. The step-daughter walks forward, alone, and places a flower on the grave. Fade out. End scene.

Yes it's cliched and simple, but you cannot deny it's a much more appropriate ending than the one we saw. The actual movie ending "cooled" the film very quickly. The ending needed a better transition from the cruel, scary, torturous, scenes we had just seen.

***Judgement***

Worth watching. Contains one laugh.

Construction in progress. To premiere February 1st (or sooner if I get my lazy ass in gear).