seriously romantic: what happens in london

i've written about julia quinn's books before. when he was wicked is probably one of my all time favorite romance books, it is one of the most poignant, most emotional books i've ever read. quinn's ability to express the constant yearning, the aching sadness her two leads live with is actually surprising, because when you consider the bulk of her oeuvre she's well known for her characters' witty repartee and comedic situations. i loved, loved, loved when he was wicked and i know that a lot of people don't, because they read for happy stories.

and that's usually why i read too, but i also like the stories to evoke something. and while quinn's other novels are amusing, i'm not usually laughing out loud. except i totally did while reading her latest novel, what happens in london, a delightful romantic comedy that leaves you just feeling happy at the end. we had first met the bevelstoke clan during the secret diaries of miss miranda cheever, quinn's first book post-bridgerton. at the time, i don't recall being particularly enchanted by them, because i know i haven't reread that particular novel and i continue to not have much interest in it. i think i found miranda cheever annoying. but that's beside the point.


this encounter with the bevelstoke clan showcases olivia, a delightful young woman who is blessed with uncommon good looks and a sharp mind. she isn't necessarily smart, but she is not the average debutante. our hero, harry valentine, is a war veteran whose knowledge of russian is integral to the plot. harry moves in next door to the bevelstoke's and when drawing room rumors prompt olivia to spy on harry who catches her at it pretty immediately, the story starts moving pretty quickly. olivia is suspicious of harry, harry thinks olivia is a bit of an idiot, but the more time they spend together [as in all romance novels] they come to realize that their first impressions shouldn't stick.

a running joke throughout the book, harry gifts olivia with a terrible gothic novel entitled miss butterworth and the mad baron, which previously made an appearance in it's in his kiss. [the smythe-smith girls and their musicales make another appearance here too, and the bridgerton family gets a small mention in a throwaway line.] the gothic novel ends up not only shedding light on the leads characters and their likes and dislikes, but also on the character of some of the supporting players. in a hilarious drawing room scene the book ends up being read aloud and much silliness follows.

interestingly, the person initially set up as the villan of the piece ends up coming off better from all the silliness and by the climax of the novel is revealed to be a non-threat. this is perhaps the only plot point that didn't work. harry and olivia were initially thrown together because of this, but the threat is dealt with rather quickly and the kidnapping and resolution all come off haphazardly and rushed. and the person ultimately revealed to be the bad guy is someone we never even knew was a threat.

the proposal at the end ties things together nicely, and i hope we get some more books set in the bevelstoke-valentine corner of london. some of the supporting players showed some hero/heroine potential. especially sebastian grey and winston bevelstoke, they seem as if they might be dreamy.

also, here is something i thought i'd share, apropos of nothing other than the fact that julia quinn is quoted in this usa today article. it's highlights that there are some seriously educated people writing and studying romance books. i think that this is really a great thing, and i can't help but love the fact that in spite of ted* [or maybe due to ted], harlequin is seeing sales growth.

images courtesy of juliaquinn.com.

* ted=the economic downturn

slightly silly: a review of "if lucy fell"

sometimes trying new things on on-demand doesn't pay off. but i was bored and there wasn't anything on that i was truly interested in and i figured that i didn't have to finish watching it if i hated it. and well, i didn't hate it.

but it wasn't good either. if lucy fell is the story of two college friends who find themselves approaching thirty and not having grown much since college. lucy [played by sarah jessica parker] is a commitment-phobic psychologist with daddy issues who's idea of true love involves her partners passing a hug test and answering yes to questions like "would you drink my spit?" joe [played by someone not all that attractive][eric schaeffer who is the lead actor, writer, & director of the film which makes him an artiste and also explains a lot as to why this movie isn't very good] is a loser art teacher deeply in lust with the next-door neighbor [elle macpherson].

lucy and joe have a death pact dating from their time in college, where if by the age of thirty [specifically lucy's thirtieth birthday] they haven't made progress on their life goals, they will fling themselves off the brooklyn bridge. predictably they set out to reach their goals, discover that their dreams weren't all they were cut out to be and realize that they are actually in love with one another.

there are no plot elements in this story that would make it interesting. and because the attractiveness of the two leads is suspect [personally i like sjp, i'm just never sure where to rate her on the attractiveness scale], there isn't really a reason to watch the film.


however, if you happen to be a huge scarlett johansson fan or you need to watch every movie ben stiller has ever been in, i guess you will want to give this one a shot. scarlett plays an art student of joe's and her signature raspy voice is in evidence even at such a young age. ben stiller on the other hand plays a zoolander-like buffoon, an artist that is set up to be a rival of joe's though the rivalry isn't really the main focus of that particular subplot. i personally am not a fan of the zoolander-like buffoon type that stiller so often plays. i like him much better when he is being mostly normal.

grade: ♥ out of ♥♥♥♥♥♥

images courtesy of geocities and impawards.

simply catching up on all things general hospital

hmmm, it's been months since i've blogged about gh. partly this is due to the fact that i fell behind while i was traveling. partly because all the outrage lapsed into disinterest when i realized i couldn't bring myself to care anymore and everything that was happening was just so trite and boring.

some days i still feel that way. and there are still whole storylines that i either hate or just fast forward through. but there are some good things too. in no particular order, here are my thoughts on the goings-on in port charles:

1. soras [and why re-casting roles works on soaps even if you do miss the original actors]:
the new, older versions of sonny's kids are turning out to be quite enjoyable. [although hilariously, cameron whom i believe is older than molly is now younger. and because cameron is so cute, i'm kind of hoping they won't fix that. we also haven't seen spencer in ages, so he may be approaching 50.] in any case, at this point we've only seen michael, morgan, and christina age up. and as much as i loved the old morgan and kristina, i think the recasts were all really good.

drew garrett has been really good as michael, and as annoying and angry as he is, he's playing a teenager who has lost a year of his life really well. i know a lot of people miss dylan cash, but i think the new guy is doing a really great job, and i think that aging michael up provides a lot of good storylines for everyone involved. and drew garrett has been great, he's played off all the major players really well. the kid has chemistry with everyone [more on that in a second], and he's a cutie as well.


lexi ainsworth has also done an admirable job at portraying the rebellious kristina. i'm really enjoying getting to know this character and think the casting department did a good job here.


and as much as i loved old morgan, the new morgan is cutely dorky. his scenes in the woods with dominic were priceless.


i can't wait to see the new molly. i think the recasts and the aging of sonny's kids are likely to be good things.

the only slightly creepy thing about the recasts are the crazy amounts of chemistry evident between michael and kristina. and i was also recently reminded of the fact that michael and kristina aren't related at all. which has me slightly worried that we will see a weird romance a la justin and rebecca on "brothers & sisters" in the future.

2. who killed the mayor's mistress
i'm as happy as the next person to have alexis on the front burner, but does it have to be at the expense of her overall intelligence as a woman? to be fair, she has had an atrocious track record when it comes to the men she is attracted to. but i still don't see why alexis needs to be involved in the mayor's downfall. although, i am looking forward to scenes between nancy lee grahn and martha byrne. somehow i think that that might be spectacular. [i might have just jinxed it.]

but anyway, it's cute watching maxie and spinelli and robin and patrick working together on the mystery. and i'm also happy that matt is somewhat involved in a front burner story. i like matt hunter, and i really want to know more about him. i'd like it if they integrated him more into the cast and gave him a real storyline. instead of just giving him a twitter feed.


3. maxie and spinelli
kirsten storms and bradford anderson are very cute together. but first there was the essential person thing, and now there is this courtly love nonsense. i mean, maybe this makes me shallow and all, but i'm with maxie--sex is important to relationships. and the fact is, maxie may love spinelli, but she isn't attracted to him. so their romantic relationship is doomed from the get-go. and it's very sweet of maxie to try and be the person spinelli wants her to be, but she is doomed to fail. you can't change who you are for someone else. and that's why i don't like this pairing.

personally i think kirsten storms and brandon barash are great together, but i also really like james cook. i'd be interested in seeing maxie and johnny or maxie and matt try things out. and maybe with his heartbreak spinelli can grow up a little bit. he should be old enough to take care of himself, he should be able to function as a slightly awkward member of society, but the way he is written sometimes it feels like he's mentally deficient.

i can't remember if it was on night shift or regular flavor gh, but there was some hint that perhaps spinelli was mildly autistic or had asperger's. that storyline would [in the hands of good writers] provide bradford with some really good material, as well as some really good material for maxie and jason. too bad it won't happen [and even if it did, the whole storyline would turn into some insane parody of itself considering the current gh writing staff].

4. ethan, rebecca, nicholas
this is the most boring love triangle. on the one hand, i definitely hate ethan a lot less than i did when he first started airing. i may not agree with what they've done to rewrite the spencer family history, but i'm happy to accept him as a spencer and move forward. i just can't stand rebecca. i can't stand rebecca and nicholas. in part because willful stupidity isn't fun to watch [see the latest episode of the bachelorette for something similar.] this whole storyline is a mess and it makes less and less sense as it progresses. although i should probably admit that i haven't actually watched it in its entirety since i tend to fast forward through all the nicholas and rebecca scenes, though i maintain that i haven't missed anything by doing so.

the sad thing is that i really loved nicholas and emily together. and having this emily lookalike storyline-love interest is really killing any residual affection i had for the couple.


5. johnny and olivia
i know a lot of people hate olivia. but i've actually liked her a heck of a lot more than i ever liked kate. and i have to say that this johnny and olivia storyline is hot. i'm really enjoying them together and can't wait to see what happens when dominic is revealed to be dante, her long-lost son with sonny. [right? that's where this is going...i haven't read spoilers, but it seems the most obvious plot twist.]

6. claudia
some days i think they are redeeming this character just a little bit, and then she acts like a hateful shrew. i just don't know what to think of her. i love sarah joy brown. i wish that the writers would pick a side, she's either consistently good and misunderstood or consistently bad to her zacchara core, but the way she flip flops and schemes and generally does insanely stupid things is enough to drive any person mad. also, she could maybe mix up her wardrobe a little.


i have this coworker who only ever wore black, gray or white, and then decided she would add a color to her closet and chose brown as the color. i want to say to claudia what i wanted to say to this coworker. a little bit of color can do amazing things. claudia would look amazing in a bright, bold [non-red] color. she doesn't always need to look like the angel of death/sex.

7. ric's departure
i'm glad he didn't leave in a body bag, and am especially glad that the actor got out of dodge before the show further wasted his talents. too bad that the show was just starting up something interesting for him to do. [though rick hearst totally made the right decision. i hope they treat him well over on "the bold & the beautiful"] though why he couldn't say goodbye to alexis or molly on-screen goes a little beyond me.


8. stuart damon
so happy for him that he can finally say farewell to the tracksuits. after being unceremoniously fired from "general hospital" during the metro court crisis, he's back on soaps in a new role on "as the world turns". good for him.

photos courtesy of zinester, soapoperasource, soaps.com, ghgeneralhospital.blogspot.com, about.com, and soapnet.

slightly silly: a review of "new in town"

i could try and explain my rationale in why i chose to watch this, but then i realized that there is no plausible reasoning that would explain why i rented this movie [for free, i swear] of comcast's on-demand service. in any case, i did it with the full expectation that this movie would be terrible.

and in many ways it was. first off, what on earth happened to renee zellweger? she was so cute in jerry maguire:


and since then she's either lived hard, or had tremendously bad plastic surgery. because in new in town she looks more like this:


there must have been a bad plastic surgeon involved with the second picture, right? because her mouth looks completely different. it's like they were striving for pouty and accidentally left her at pinched. and i don't bring this up because i like to make fun of bad plastic surgeries or the celebrities that have indulged in bad plastic surgeries, i bring it up because it's kind of shocking to see her face in the movie. and you don't really want your audience to have that reaction when you make a romantic comedy. because it wasn't a good kind of shocking, it was "what happened to her?" shocking.

anyway, the secondary characters all play up the minnesota stereotype. except for harry connick, jr who plays a down-in-the-dumps widower/union president as the male lead, he's actually not originally from minnesota so that they do have something in common. he's charming, but at the same time, this fish-out-of-water story focuses more on the city-girl-thrust-into-the-backwoods storyline rather than the romance between the two leads, which is somewhat in the tradition of "baby boom" but ends up being considerably less charming.

which is ultimately the major flaw of the film. all the elements of the traditional rom-com are there, and as a non-discerning viewer it's not anymore painful to sit through than say she's all that.

grade: ♥♥ out of ♥♥♥♥♥♥

seriously romantic: my grandmother's books

when i completed my master's project, i dedicated it to my two grandmothers, two women who have had an incredible presence and effect on my life. my maternal grandmother, in particular, shaped my likes and dislikes in ways that i am still sometimes surprised by. she passed away just before the new year, and one of the things i inherited was her collection of harlequin romance books.


she started collecting them after her mother died. she had cared for her mother as she aged and during one last illness and suddenly found that she had a lot of time on her hands. so she signed up to receive six books a month from the harlequin reader service. the bulk of her collection runs from 1977 to 1988, which coincides with my grandfather's death. she didn't save every single book, only the good ones [of the later years she kept very few, which indicates that the books were getting a little, shall we say, spicier and this more than anything likely contributed to her cancellation of her subscription to the service], and she was so organized she kept them in numerical order and had each book listed in a composition notebook by number. when i was younger borrowing one meant my initial was penciled into the book, so that she would know where it was. my grandmother was such a stickler.


i am slowly making my way through the series. as a fairly modern, contemporary woman, reading the older books [some of them are reprints from the 1960s] is on some levels a bit horrifying--the things a young, single woman could and couldn't do at that time are shocking, what is considered scandalous behavior is astounding to me. however, the overall tone of the novels actually convey an innocent earnestness.


the primness and sexism evident in the novels at the time lead to amusement more than a call to arms to militant feminism. these books were written by women for women, so it's clear that the sexism is a mere reflection of the times rather than an ideological manifesto. more often than not, i end up laughing at the more egregiously sexist passages.

in any case, to share my enjoyment of these books, i'm going to be posting some reviews and thoughts on them over the summer. my goal is to read all of them by summer's end. i probably won't review all of them, but will do my best to note down my thoughts as i read them.

slightly silly: a review of "step up 2: the streets"

i believe my love of silly romantic comedies has been well-documented. and because during the [supposedly] long summer months most of my television viewing consists of [torturing myself by] watching "general hospital" and/or on-demand movies, i decided to spice things up around here with a new feature, focusing on the aforementioned on-demand movies.

last night i watched step up 2: the streets, a follow-up to the surprisingly entertaining step up. to be honest, i'm not entirely positive step up is actually as entertaining as i think it is, but i simply enjoy it because...well, perhaps i'll just show you:



i don't know. i just happen to think this guy [channing tatum] is so hot. [you know, i don't often spend a lot of time thinking about how much my television viewing habits are influenced by the "hot guy quotient" but i think it might actually work out to be a pretty high percentage of my viewing choices are based on who i think is hot.]

anyway, i really enjoyed step up and because i was bored [the hubby was out for drinks with the sister-in-law] and knew that no one would object, i decided to take a chance on the sequel being as entertaining as the first movie. did it succeed?

well, sort of:



i mean, the guy [robert hoffman] is cute. but. he just isn't as hot as channing tatum. otherwise, i think in both films there are issues with the story, but in the first movie it seems to flow a bit more smoothly. the sequel is more concerned with dance montages. all well and good considering it is a movie about street dancing, but i think that the story/plot suffers pretty significantly because of this focus. in the first film there was some real tension between the characters' backgrounds and family life. though the second film tries to build this up, it doesn't do it very successfully.

all in all, the movie is ultimately really sweet and fun. and totally worth watching if you enjoyed the first one. is it a movie to watch over and over again? probably not, though if i caught it on tbs the way i have the first one, i might end up rewatching. but that says more about my lack of high standards when it comes to the films i like to watch.

grade: ♥♥♥ out of ♥♥♥♥♥♥

p.s. just found out there is apparently a movie called step up 3-d in development. hmmm.

simply dead and gone

the latest season of "true blood" will kick off this coming sunday, and in honor of the occasion i thought i'd share my thoughts on the latest installment of the sookie stackhouse-southern vampire mysteries, dead and gone. since i first read the first eight books, i've gone back and re-read several of them...okay fine, i'll admit it, i've read dead to the world and from dead to worse multiple times solely because of the eric and sookie relationship. i have no problem confessing to the fact that i'm obsessed with eric! not only the fictional book character, but also the actor who plays him on tv: alexander skarsgård is freaking hot!!


anyway, the latest installment of sookie's story begins on the night that were-creatures and shifters come out of the metaphorical closet, an announcement that seemingly upsets the balance between the supernatural and natural worlds. surprisingly this isn't the chief conflict of the book. instead the supernatural populace currently tormenting sookie are the fairies, and even as her great-grandfather niall does all he can to protect her, she finds herself in the thick of it as per usual.

meanwhile sookie is also juggling her relationship with eric, which has been complicated by the fact that he has regained his memories of the time he spent with her during dead to the world. and she struggles with his need to protect her, her uncertainty about his real feelings, and her own uncertainty regarding her feelings. there is a really nice scene between the characters that gives us some insight into eric's character--where he comes from, who he was before he became a vampire.

ultimately i felt like the book didn't spend enough time with the characters we all know and love by engaging in all the nonsense about the fairy kingdom and its strange war with humans. and i think the issue of the were-creature and shifter reveal really got the shaft in this volume. hopefully now that the fairy story has been seemingly resolved, we can focus on the weres and vampires, and more specifically on sookie and eric.

they make huge strides in their relationship in this book, but these strides aren't given enough time to really sink in. not only do the readers not have enough time to absorb it, but sookie herself doesn't seem like she's really tracking what's happening. in some ways, in this book, sookie is given to more lassitude than usual, she doesn't seem to react as strongly or as viserally to things as she has done in the past. in some ways it's like she's wandering around in a bit of a daze. one can only hope she snaps out of it soon enough.

so overall i liked it, i loved the sookie and eric moments, and i can't wait until the next one. which needs to publish pronto!!

photo courtesy of filmonic.com.