Search
Search results
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated A Lady in Defiance (Romance in the Rockies #1) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
When God leads three sisters to a town called Defiance, they had no idea how He would use them to shine His light in the darkest of places.
"Naomi found it mind-boggling and quite humbling what God could do if you let him."
Location 3665
About the Book
Charles McIntyre is the founder of Defiance, a town riddled with lust and drunkenness. He is determined to clean up the town so that the railroad will lay tracks there. The only problem is, he has forgotten what it takes to be a man of honor. Recently widowed Mrs. Naomi Miller and her two sisters, Hannah and Rebecca, know that they were led to Defiance by God. Intent on opening a respectable hotel, they face challenges that they have been unprepared for. Following the Lord's lead...and sometimes that of a feisty personality, the sisters aim to earn a decent reputation in the town and share the love of God with those around them. Showing them that no one is perfect, and that our Heavenly Father loves us no matter our past. Repentance and salvation is available to us all. Will Naomi be able to see past the sins of the man and see his heart? With more than one disreputable man in town, will the sisters remain safe?
My Thoughts
I have not read many books that so blatantly show us the black and white of sin and salvation. There is a lot of language referencing the work of the prostitutes in the story. But I do not feel that the profession was glamorized at all, far from it. There is a lot of reference to the prostitutes' low cut dresses and ogling of the females in general by the men. But as the sisters remain pure, their attitudes and behavior rubs off on those around them. Giving us a perfect example of being in the world but not of it. They held firm to their beliefs and were not swayed by the godless world around them. And through them God brought a change to the town and the occupants. While this is not a book I would recommend for young readers, I never felt uncomfortable reading this and I am planning on reading the rest of the series. I would also like to honor Heather for writing what she was called to write. She shares the true grit of the west with the pure love and acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ.
My Rating
★★★★☆ - You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you. (More Info)
Published by Rivulet Publishing. I received a free digital copy of A Lady in Defiance in exchange for my honest review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
"Naomi found it mind-boggling and quite humbling what God could do if you let him."
Location 3665
About the Book
Charles McIntyre is the founder of Defiance, a town riddled with lust and drunkenness. He is determined to clean up the town so that the railroad will lay tracks there. The only problem is, he has forgotten what it takes to be a man of honor. Recently widowed Mrs. Naomi Miller and her two sisters, Hannah and Rebecca, know that they were led to Defiance by God. Intent on opening a respectable hotel, they face challenges that they have been unprepared for. Following the Lord's lead...and sometimes that of a feisty personality, the sisters aim to earn a decent reputation in the town and share the love of God with those around them. Showing them that no one is perfect, and that our Heavenly Father loves us no matter our past. Repentance and salvation is available to us all. Will Naomi be able to see past the sins of the man and see his heart? With more than one disreputable man in town, will the sisters remain safe?
My Thoughts
I have not read many books that so blatantly show us the black and white of sin and salvation. There is a lot of language referencing the work of the prostitutes in the story. But I do not feel that the profession was glamorized at all, far from it. There is a lot of reference to the prostitutes' low cut dresses and ogling of the females in general by the men. But as the sisters remain pure, their attitudes and behavior rubs off on those around them. Giving us a perfect example of being in the world but not of it. They held firm to their beliefs and were not swayed by the godless world around them. And through them God brought a change to the town and the occupants. While this is not a book I would recommend for young readers, I never felt uncomfortable reading this and I am planning on reading the rest of the series. I would also like to honor Heather for writing what she was called to write. She shares the true grit of the west with the pure love and acceptance of our Lord Jesus Christ.
My Rating
★★★★☆ - You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you. (More Info)
Published by Rivulet Publishing. I received a free digital copy of A Lady in Defiance in exchange for my honest review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Yes Man (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Carl Allen (Jim Carrey) is a man that has shut himself away from life following a divorce. Despite the best efforts of his friends Peter (Bradley Cooper), and Rooney (Danny Masterson), Carl is content to keep his life to toiling away in a dead end banking job and limiting his social activity to renting DVDs and watching them at home alone.
Following another disappoint day at work where he learned that he is once again being overlooked for a promotion, Carl runs into an old friend who tells him about a seminar that changed his life and has freed him up to do and be what he wants.
With his curiosity peaked, Carl attends the seminar that is conducted by the charismatic Terrance Bundley (Terrance Stamp), who decides to make Carl his project, and tells him that he must agree to say yes to things that are offered to him. Although reluctant, Carl takes the advice and says yes to the first thing he is asked, which is to give a ride to a stranger.
The chance ride and resulting situations that follow lead Carl to meet a quirky and attractive lady named Allison (Zooey Deschanel), who intrigues Carl. The next day, Carl learns that he is getting the promotion and despite getting into some outrageous and at times, scary situations, he continues to say Yes to everything that is offered to him, as he fears the consequences of breaking the covenant of yes.
Carl eventually meets up with Allison again and learns that she spends her evenings singing in a unique band, and the two begin a relationship soon after. What follows is a very funny and amusing story that tracks the crazy events that follow Carl as he begins to open himself not only to Allison but to the possibilities that life presents to him every day when one makes themselves open to new possibilities.
The film is based on the book by Danny Wallace which covers his exploits when he decided to yes to everything thing presented to him for one year. While the film has little in common with the book aside from the title and saying yes premise.
“Yes Man” is Carrey’s best film in years and is a triumphant return to the comedy films that made him such a huge success. He plays Carl with a very likeable and easygoing manner that makes him easy to root for and his energetic performance once again proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of the most gifted comedians of our generation.
Despite the differences in their ages, Carrey and Deschanel make a winning combination and the strong supporting cast anchored by Stamp, Cooper, and Rhys Darby make this a very funny and enjoyable comedy.
Following another disappoint day at work where he learned that he is once again being overlooked for a promotion, Carl runs into an old friend who tells him about a seminar that changed his life and has freed him up to do and be what he wants.
With his curiosity peaked, Carl attends the seminar that is conducted by the charismatic Terrance Bundley (Terrance Stamp), who decides to make Carl his project, and tells him that he must agree to say yes to things that are offered to him. Although reluctant, Carl takes the advice and says yes to the first thing he is asked, which is to give a ride to a stranger.
The chance ride and resulting situations that follow lead Carl to meet a quirky and attractive lady named Allison (Zooey Deschanel), who intrigues Carl. The next day, Carl learns that he is getting the promotion and despite getting into some outrageous and at times, scary situations, he continues to say Yes to everything that is offered to him, as he fears the consequences of breaking the covenant of yes.
Carl eventually meets up with Allison again and learns that she spends her evenings singing in a unique band, and the two begin a relationship soon after. What follows is a very funny and amusing story that tracks the crazy events that follow Carl as he begins to open himself not only to Allison but to the possibilities that life presents to him every day when one makes themselves open to new possibilities.
The film is based on the book by Danny Wallace which covers his exploits when he decided to yes to everything thing presented to him for one year. While the film has little in common with the book aside from the title and saying yes premise.
“Yes Man” is Carrey’s best film in years and is a triumphant return to the comedy films that made him such a huge success. He plays Carl with a very likeable and easygoing manner that makes him easy to root for and his energetic performance once again proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of the most gifted comedians of our generation.
Despite the differences in their ages, Carrey and Deschanel make a winning combination and the strong supporting cast anchored by Stamp, Cooper, and Rhys Darby make this a very funny and enjoyable comedy.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Dancer in the Dark (2000) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Selma is a simple woman leading a simple life. She lives with her only son in a trailer on the property of her friends the nice cop and his wife. She works at a metal factory making sinks and basins. She doesn't make a lot of money, so she holds on to almost every penny she earns for something secret. She can't even buy her son a present for his birthday, so her friends and landlords buy the boy the used bicycle he has been yearning for. Selma also enjoys musicals. She loves them. Especially The Sound of Music, She is actually cast in a local production and gets to play Maria. She can even hear rhythm through the common sounds of life like a train on its tracks or even the sounds of people walking. She creates melodies in her head to distract from the mundane events of life. Sometimes these melodies turn into full production numbers only visible in the confines of her cerebrum.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020 (Updated Feb 12, 2020)
Birds of Prey is a mixed bag, but there's just about enough good there to make it an enjoyable time.
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way 👍)
I absolutely hated Suicide Squad, so naturally, didn't have high hopes for this. The film is aesthetically in the same vein, and carries a similar tone, but this time around, it mostly works.
One of the only things I liked in SS was Margot Robbie, so making her front and centre here is a smart move. She is undeniably the star, and even a cynical bastard like me has to admit, that she is a solid embodiment of Harley Quinn
The surrounding cast are unfortunately, under developed and have little impact. It's great to see characters like Black Canary, Huntress and Zsasz finally bought to the big screen, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jurnee Smollett-Bell so a good job with what they're given, but the plots focus on Harley, and the films relatively brief runtime, leave little room for development past a flashback here and there, which is a shame.
The only character that comes close to matching the leading lady is Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis aka Black Mask. McGregor obviously relishes in making Sionis seedy, nasty, misogynistic, and flamboyant, and results in one of those villains that you can't wait to get stomped down. The two of them carry the film, no doubt.
The pacing and narrative structure is comparable to Deadpool, with a good chunk of the film being told through various flashbacks. It honestly feels messy for much of the first half, and the truth is, this structure is hiding a fairly thread bare plot.
When the movie catches up with itself, if you will, and moves forward with a more traditional story path, is where there movie started to shine a bit more. The mid section lost me a little bit, with the exception of the odd set piece (the scene in the police station looks incredible), but when Birds of Prey hits it's third act, it's a lot of dumb, beautifully shot fun. The whole final sequence is great, and instead of the overloaded CGI orgies that I've come to expect from the DCEU, we get given fantastically choreographed, practical fight scenes, full of colour, swearing, a surprisingly hard hitting violence.
I left the cinema talking about all the bits that I liked, a stark contrast to the vitriol I felt after seeing Suicide Squad. It's not perfect, it's messy, it's a little cheesy, and is maybe guilty of thinking it's better than it is, but all in all, I can't find too much to complain about.
Also, that car chase scene was ridiculous (in a good way 👍)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
MyMinis - For LEGO® Minifigs
Shopping and Reference
App
MyMinis was last updated for Series 14 with 16 awesome minifigures! Use the Photo Touch Guide to...
Bonita Avenue
Book
A darkly hilarious tale of a model family's disintegration. Professor Siem Sigerius - maths genius,...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated Ready For It (MacAteer Brothers #2) in Books
Feb 3, 2021
a much more enjoyable, but darker read than book one, and I loved it!
Indepedent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 2 in the MacAteer Brothers series, and it would help to have read book one, Run With It. Not totally necessary, but I would personally recommend you do. You'll get a better feel of Melanie, and Owen and his brothers, I think.
Melanie is Bev's best friend, and looks after herself and stuff anyone else. Owen is one of Connor's younger brothers. Owen has had a bit of a crush on Mel for a long time, and when Mel is left in a difficult place, he steps up. Then the reasons WHY Mel is the way she is with men comes out, and Owen is all Alpha-Male-Protect-Whats-Mine.
I found this a much darker read, given Mel's history, but also I bloody LOVED it!
Mel has a voice in the first person, and Owen in the third. I knew this going in, and expected it, and I enjoyed reading Owen's voice so much more than Connor's. Owen is a gentle giant with a stutter and a speech impediment, that leaves him somewhat tongue tied amoung people he doesn't know, or isn't comfortable with. VERY quickly, Owen is speaking with mel in full sentences, with no sign of his problem. That should have clued him up, right quick, that somethign special was happening between them.
It takes time for Mel and Owen to fully commit, and to get together, and I LOVED being made to wait for it. I think I would have loved it even they had NOT got to the smexy times, I really do. Mel's little problem not withstanding. But once they do? OOOOEEEEE! They are committed and all in. I loved that.
Owen doesn't say much, verbally, but when we get him in his chapters, he is deep. He was hurt before, and you understand why he holds himself back some, but he loves Mel, from very early on, and it pained me when she kept friend-zoning him!
We get a bit more of Garrett, Owen's twin, and his book is next. We also meet the lady who will steal his heart. THAT book is next on my list, and given what we learn here, and reading the blurb, I think it may well be a bit darker than this one!
Billed as s spin off to the Dragon Runners series, it's not necessary to read those. I didn't like them, to be honest, but I'm loving these and I look forward to reading about the other set of twins further down the series!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is book 2 in the MacAteer Brothers series, and it would help to have read book one, Run With It. Not totally necessary, but I would personally recommend you do. You'll get a better feel of Melanie, and Owen and his brothers, I think.
Melanie is Bev's best friend, and looks after herself and stuff anyone else. Owen is one of Connor's younger brothers. Owen has had a bit of a crush on Mel for a long time, and when Mel is left in a difficult place, he steps up. Then the reasons WHY Mel is the way she is with men comes out, and Owen is all Alpha-Male-Protect-Whats-Mine.
I found this a much darker read, given Mel's history, but also I bloody LOVED it!
Mel has a voice in the first person, and Owen in the third. I knew this going in, and expected it, and I enjoyed reading Owen's voice so much more than Connor's. Owen is a gentle giant with a stutter and a speech impediment, that leaves him somewhat tongue tied amoung people he doesn't know, or isn't comfortable with. VERY quickly, Owen is speaking with mel in full sentences, with no sign of his problem. That should have clued him up, right quick, that somethign special was happening between them.
It takes time for Mel and Owen to fully commit, and to get together, and I LOVED being made to wait for it. I think I would have loved it even they had NOT got to the smexy times, I really do. Mel's little problem not withstanding. But once they do? OOOOEEEEE! They are committed and all in. I loved that.
Owen doesn't say much, verbally, but when we get him in his chapters, he is deep. He was hurt before, and you understand why he holds himself back some, but he loves Mel, from very early on, and it pained me when she kept friend-zoning him!
We get a bit more of Garrett, Owen's twin, and his book is next. We also meet the lady who will steal his heart. THAT book is next on my list, and given what we learn here, and reading the blurb, I think it may well be a bit darker than this one!
Billed as s spin off to the Dragon Runners series, it's not necessary to read those. I didn't like them, to be honest, but I'm loving these and I look forward to reading about the other set of twins further down the series!
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
