Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Max Payne (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Against the gritty, snow covered, and crime ridden streets of New York, one man is waging a battle for redemption and revenge. The man in Detective Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg), and following the murder of his wife and infant son, Payne has seen his life and career spin down an ever deepening black hole to the point where he is relegated to a basement office working on cold cases.
Max has become a creature of the night, and spends his off hours patrolling the grimy sections of the city looking for clues about the death of his wife and taking on all manner of the cities criminal elements to get to the truth which has so long eluded him.
While attempting to gain information from a former snitch, Max is introduced to the Natasha Sax (Olga Kurylenko), and her sister Mona (Mila Kunis). The fact that Mona is suspicious of Max from the start is of little concern to Natasha who follows Max back to his apartment and attempts to seduce him. Max quickly spurns her advances which causes Natasha to leave his apartment angry and unbeknownst to Max, steals his wallet in the process. Shortly after leaving Max’s apartment, Natasha is brutally murdered and when Max’s wallet is found at the scene, he becomes the lead suspect in the murder.
Soon after learning from his former partner that Natasha’s dead may be linked to the death of Max’s wife, Max becomes the subject of a city wide manhunt when his partner turns up dead which is attributed to Max going over the edge.
In a race against time, Max must get to the bottom of the deaths as well as solve his family’s murder and clear his good name. This will not be easy as Max must face the resources of a gigantic corporation as well as a crazed drug lord, and his colleagues on the police force.
Based on the popular video games series from Remedy Entertainment and 3D Realms, Max Payne takes some of the games more prominent characters and themes and creates a new storyline. The bullet time ability that Max had in the game has been omitted and replaced with a few gun battles that are shot at times in slow motion, such as a well staged battle in an office building.
While the storyline and character development may be lacking, the film does a decent job of capturing the look and tone of the games, and Wahlberg is solid as the tormented lead character.
Backed by a solid supporting cast which includes Beau Bridges, Chris O’Donnell, and Ludacris, “Max Payne” is an enjoyable if flawed movie experience that makes up for its shortcomings with solid visuals and some great gun battles that come late in the film.
The picture and sound quality of the movie are very crisp and if you have the chance to enjoy the film in surround sound and HDTV I would highly suggest it.
The bonus features are very good and there is a great graphic book feature that delves more into the character of Max Payne’s wife and the events leading up to her murder.
Max has become a creature of the night, and spends his off hours patrolling the grimy sections of the city looking for clues about the death of his wife and taking on all manner of the cities criminal elements to get to the truth which has so long eluded him.
While attempting to gain information from a former snitch, Max is introduced to the Natasha Sax (Olga Kurylenko), and her sister Mona (Mila Kunis). The fact that Mona is suspicious of Max from the start is of little concern to Natasha who follows Max back to his apartment and attempts to seduce him. Max quickly spurns her advances which causes Natasha to leave his apartment angry and unbeknownst to Max, steals his wallet in the process. Shortly after leaving Max’s apartment, Natasha is brutally murdered and when Max’s wallet is found at the scene, he becomes the lead suspect in the murder.
Soon after learning from his former partner that Natasha’s dead may be linked to the death of Max’s wife, Max becomes the subject of a city wide manhunt when his partner turns up dead which is attributed to Max going over the edge.
In a race against time, Max must get to the bottom of the deaths as well as solve his family’s murder and clear his good name. This will not be easy as Max must face the resources of a gigantic corporation as well as a crazed drug lord, and his colleagues on the police force.
Based on the popular video games series from Remedy Entertainment and 3D Realms, Max Payne takes some of the games more prominent characters and themes and creates a new storyline. The bullet time ability that Max had in the game has been omitted and replaced with a few gun battles that are shot at times in slow motion, such as a well staged battle in an office building.
While the storyline and character development may be lacking, the film does a decent job of capturing the look and tone of the games, and Wahlberg is solid as the tormented lead character.
Backed by a solid supporting cast which includes Beau Bridges, Chris O’Donnell, and Ludacris, “Max Payne” is an enjoyable if flawed movie experience that makes up for its shortcomings with solid visuals and some great gun battles that come late in the film.
The picture and sound quality of the movie are very crisp and if you have the chance to enjoy the film in surround sound and HDTV I would highly suggest it.
The bonus features are very good and there is a great graphic book feature that delves more into the character of Max Payne’s wife and the events leading up to her murder.
Organizational Change
Barbara Senior and Stephen Swailes
Book
This very successful textbook explores change and how it relates to the complexities of...
JT (287 KP) rated Killer Elite (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Just another mindless Statham master-class of ass kicking? Think again people, this one is a whole different ball game, and one that sets this easily one of the Stath’s best to date. Paired alongside Robert De Niro would be an honour in itself for any actor and the rapport between the two was like they had been lifelong friends.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
Despite De Niro’s relatively smallish part he still gets his moment in the limelight, and makes the most of the opportunity, with a few witty pieces of dialogue thrown in, we all know he can handle an automatic weapon.
It’s more than just an action film though, it’s part drama part spy thriller
This is all about Danny (Jason Statham) and his group of deadly assassins, Davies, played by Prison Break’s Dominic Purcell and Meier (Aden Young) who set out to take down three former SAS soldiers who are alleged to have killed a dying Sheik’s three sons. All this in return for the release of Hunter, simply put “You do this job, or Hunter’s a dead man.”
Set in the 80s it gives the film a real retro feel to it, and the action is balls and all, there is no CGI here. From an opening sequence centred on a assassination attempt to close hand to hand combat, director McKendry goes a little Bourne-esque with his sharp direction and tight camera shots.
Clive Owen sporting the film’s dodgiest tash is ultra slick and uber cool as the dogsbody of a secret society called The Feather Men which is actually a book by Ranulph Fiennes to which the film is based. Why The Feather Men? Because they have the lightest touch, apt really when Owen goes about his business heavy handed.
It’s more than just an action film though, its part drama part spy thriller. The script is extremely well written with intricate characters that you can care about, rather than go to watch kick the shit out of each other.
The film does jump from a variety of locations, from the Middle East to London to Paris to the outback bush of Australia, it can be hard to follow and keep up with just where they are. But a close eye will leave no confusion whatsoever.
It’s a great debut feature from McKendry and will do his stock no harm at all, and for Statham fans this one has got a bit more meat on it to chew through.
MarginNote Pro
Productivity and Education
App
*** Reading & Studying will NEVER be the same! *** Welcome to MarginNote. This is a highly powerful...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Movies Are Prayers in Books
Jun 18, 2017
An Interesting Perspective
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
JKZ Series1
Health & Fitness
App
Dr Jon Kabat-Zinn’s Series 1 – NOW available as an app! The Series 1 mindfulness meditation app...
Discovering Modern C++: An Intensive Course for Scientists, Engineers, and Programmers
Book
As scientific and engineering projects grow larger and more complex, it is increasingly likely that...
100 of the World's Tallest Buildings
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and Antony Wood
Book
Features the official current list of the "100 Tallest Buildings in the World," as the CTBUH is the...
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Attachments in Books
Nov 16, 2017
Unconventional Romance (3 more)
Read Life Issues
Movie/Book References
Friendships
Love at First...E-mail?
I've seen some low scored reviews for this book on GR and I realized it may keep some people from reading it, but here are some points I think some should consider before not giving Attachments a chance:
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?
1. This is Rainbow Rowell's first published novel, so of course for some it doesn't hold the magic like Eleanor & Park. Keep in mind many first books never hold against later published works, but are still good or why would the author be allowed to continue?
2. Even though it was published in 2011, it is based in 1999/2000 for plot reasons as to why Lincoln would have his job. This may offset some readers who might not realize how different 1999 is to 2017 Internet use wise for jobs.
3. The lack of reading into who and why the characters are as they are. In a way, it is the adult version of Fangirl, expect the roles are flipped a tad bit.
Anyway, I loved Attachments because it stayed true to Rowell's style, yet it felt raw compared to how she writes now. There is the unconventional love story of a man falling in love with a woman through the e-mails he reads as part of his job to ensure people are working and not nonsense while on the job. There's characters of all sorts with real world problems and real life flaws. There are topics covered of overbearing mothers and mothers who are too cruel both because of their own life. There is men who never want to be tied down, yet one does due to advice and the right woman. The book covers pieces life without taking from the plot whatsoever.
Lincoln O'Neil is a 28-year-old who could have been a successful man with a normal day shift job if a break up had not left him shattered nine years before. Maybe also if his mother had not coddled him, even though she clearly meant well as it is clear him and his sister, Eve, might have been her whole life. Yet we would not have the awkward, shy man working a the swing shift in the IT office as a "security officer" fixing computers in his spare time when he isn't reading through e-mails that come up flagged in the Webfence program. Apparently the security part was ensuring no one at the newspaper office was using the Internet to look at porn, gamble, or idle chit chat instead of working. Not quite was Lincoln had pictured and he doesn't enjoy reading people's exchanges, but the money is good and will grant him the chance to move out his mom's sooner rather than later.
His mundane routine and nothingness during his shift is filled with some enjoyment as Lincoln reads the e-mails flagged from Beth Fremont and Jennifer Scribner-Snyder. There is nothing harmful. Innocent discussions of water cooler talk, life, relationships, and gossip. As much as he knows it is wrong to continue to read their messages about their lives without flagging them as he would anyone else Lincoln cannot help but to get a kick out of the e-mails.
However it soon becomes apparent Lincoln has fallen for Beth despite the fact he has no idea what she looks like or who is she outside of work. Not to mention she has a boyfriend, Chris, who even though she may rant about to Jennifer, she obviously has not intent on breaking ties with. Not for someone like Lincoln anyway. So he spends his time in turmoil trying to decide if a new job is in order, going back to college, or finding a woman to focus his attention on (which are the very things he tries to do). He even tries to ignore the e-mails, yet can't. He cannot help, but feel for Jennifer's worry over having a baby even though her husband wants one. He cannot help, but captivated by their friendship. He cannot help his feelings for Beth for who she is.
It doesn't help Beth has spotted him labeling him as "A Cute Guy" when he never realized she was around. It is like a game of cat and mouse between them then. Beth still unaware he is reading her e-mails. Lincoln unaware of how often she is close to him even when she is going out of her way to find him.
Thus a budding romance is born. But how much of a romance can it be when Beth has Chris and Lincoln can barely look a woman in the eyes?