Kristal Lee

Click here for Official Website

Jake's character, Dastan, is the adopted son of a Persian king. When he dies after Dastan presents him with a gift, all suspect that Dastan has murdered him. Dastan flees with the captured Princess Tamina who is guardian of the dagger containing the sands of time. Together they must prove Dastan's innocence, unmask the traitor, and keep the Tamina's dagger from falling into the hands of enemy. Lots of action, lots of acrobatics, and lots of fun to watch.

The heavy subjects of jealous, betrayal and power are balanced with unexpected moments of comic relief. Gotta say, I loved the ostrich races and the characters intertwined with them. The scenes were well paced, the plot intriguing with a red herring here and there to complicate the story line. The location was beautifully filmed and all the actors were committed to their roles. I thoroughly enjoyed the time spent absorbed in this film. Kudos to the writers, directors, producers, actors, camera operators and the entire production staff on their efforts. It isn't an easy task to turn a video game into a well-crafted movie, but they did it fabulously.

Since I was already thinking about alpha and beta males before viewing this film, the matter continued to mull around in my brain. Romance readers (and writers) often gravitate toward those larger than life Alpha males. Their heroes can be reserved and quiet, but when it matters they must step into the ring without hesitation and beat the crap out of anyone who messes with their heroine.

Taking a step back from Alpha males for a moment, I ponder how the heroine roles have changed for today's readers. These women are no longer the helpless females tied to the railroad tracks who are forced to wait for the hero to rescue them. In these modern times, readers expect the heroine to act in her own behalf. Getting help from the hero is okay, but he isn't expected to do all the work. The dynamic between hero and heroine has evolved. The Alpha male now has to deal with an Alpha female. And this is exactly why Prince of Persia worked so well for me.

Dastan and Princess Tamina are equally pig-headed and equally matched. They clash from the get go and I believe this type of delicious conflict builds the massive sexual tension that readers and viewers expect.

What about your thoughts? Who is your favorite Alpha male (character)? Who is your favorite Beta male (character)?


*Photos @  IMDB

If you're looking for a seat of your pants, harem scare 'em flick, Zombieland isn't what you're looking for. However, if you want a good laugh and don't care about a mindless wandering plot, then Zombieland is exactly what you need.

Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslyn run from zombies and ditch each other in this ridiculous spoof. If you haven't guessed already, then let me advise you that I didn't pick this movie to watch. Hubby did. 'Nuff said about that.

Being a good sport, I settled back in the recliner. Lights dimmed. Surround sound blaring.  He likes to  recreate the movie theater experience. I cringe as the French door panels rattle.

Lots of non-nonsensical shenanigans filled the TV screen and for the first third of the movie, I kept asking where's the plot. According to IMDb, the plot is "searching for family." Really? Hmmm, I didn't get that.

But, I didn't need too.

Once I gave up on trying to figure out the plot, the story arc, the character motivations, and so on and so forth into infinity, I found myself enjoying the madness. It was funny. At times, ironically stupid. No way in creation was it believable, but it was entertaining. And that's the point, isn't it?

Entertainment.

The reason we watch movies. The reason we read books.

An audience wants to be entertained. Whether its a deliciously decadent Scottish historical romance, a down and dirty western, a flight by night paranormal suspense, or a life and death medical drama our audience wants to be taken away from the realities of their daily lives and escape into another reality. That reality doesn't need to be true to life. It simply needs to be entertaining.
~Kristal Lee

It’s alligator season in Florida. Everyone’s secured their hunting permits and readied their bang sticks. Gassed up the airboats and motor boats. Filled up the coolers with drinks.


While enthusiasts spent the night tracking and wrestling gators on the still, blue waters of Lake Okeechobee, hubby and I snuggled in for an evening watching the Lake Placid movies. Might have been more realistic if the setting was Lake Placid, FLORIDA where there are real alligators and not up in the North East. And someone should have taken the time to at least google alligator behavior and habitats.

Another thing I notice was the confusion between alligator and crocodile. The two are not interchangeable. Like a rat and a squirrel. Both are rodents, but they aren’t the same rodent.


Loved Betty White in the original. John Schneider didn’t quite steal my heart in #2 the way he did in the Dukes of Hazzard (the original TV show, not the movie remake). Yancy Butler was the tough, go-getter cougar that I expected her to be in #3.

So, what did I learn about the craft of writing watching this monstrous trilogy?

It’s not enough to simply make something larger than life. You have to make it believable or it becomes farcical. Monsters, even supernatural ones, should come equipped with predictable behavior traits. Random chaos doesn’t apply, because if you want to get into the quantum matter of things, there is order even in chaos. But, that’s another topic.

Everything in the universe adheres to rules and patterns. When world building or monster making, that is an important fact to remember. It should be the foundation of your creation.

Without a core structure to support all the fantastical things that a writer can imagine, the creation falls apart. Think of the human body without a skeleton, a skyscraper without the steel supports, a jellyfish without its fibrous membranes. Take out the internal structure and what’s left is a puddle of goo.

Plan your monsters carefully. Give them strengths and weaknesses and use those to their advantage and against them. The stakes for the hero/heroine should be high, but not unobtainable. They can’t be defeated at every turn and then suddenly defeat the monster in the last second using the same weapons, cunning, etc., that failed them time and time again. To do so is the result of lackluster writing and an underactive imagination. Trust me, if the writer isn’t interested in investing the time needed to carefully craft their monsters, the reader/viewer won’t be either.

This week hubby and I watched 30 Days of Night with Josh Hartnett. It’s about a small town in Alaska that gets no sunlight for 30 days. Naturally, this set-up provides the perfect smorgasbord for vampires. I won’t go into the gory details of the fanged leeches run a muck. And I won’t give the details of the hero’s demise in the end. I’m a romance writer. I want the happily ever after, not a Nicholas Sparks’s ending, no matter how poetic.

So, what caught my attention the most in this film?

Unnecessary characters.

Throughout the story, there are 5 maybe 6 vampires that are shown consistently. We never learn their names, but we see them often enough to identify them as the collective villain. However in the climactic scene, suddenly there are about two dozen vampires. So, where did they all come from and why didn’t they show up before the end?

Also, a couple of characters emerged for very brief scenes and none of the “humans” knew who they were. Apparently, the vampires didn’t either.

Hello! If no one in the story can explain who the mystery characters are or why they are there, why bother having them pop in?

Unnecessary characters clutter the story and confuse the heck out of me.

I’m not talking about the nameless, faceless, cardboard stand-ins that are the innocent bystanders or persons in the check-out line at the grocery store or the pedestrian the heroine passes on the street who are needed for local color. I’m talking about the characters that suddenly appear, unannounced, un-introduced, and no one but the writer knows who they are or why they’re in the story. Then, poof! They’re gone.

Now, I’m annoyed. I spend more time trying to understand the intrusion and lose focus on the story.

In one such scene, a little girl vampire is devouring a nameless someone. Every known character on screen comments that no one knows who this child is or where she came from. Okay. I was a bit intrigued, expecting a plot twist because so far none of the vampires had children in tow. So, where did this pointy-toothed munchkin come from and why was she in the story?

I’m waiting for the big revelation and they promptly lop off her head.

Big disappointment.

Later, it’s revealed that she bit one of the humans that had banded together and he begins turning into a vampire. Hmmmm. Why not use a vampire character who we’d already seen rather than one that no one knew how to explain?

The little girl was a loose thread and if yanked, the plot wouldn’t unravel. Wouldn’t have left even the tiniest whole in the fabric of the story.

Switching gears to writing…If a new character can be deleted, or replaced by another who the reader has already been introduced to, and still maintain the integrity of the story, you must snip that new character out of the manuscript immediately. Failure to do so will cause little fuzz balls in your reader’s mind. The danger there is that little fuzz balls are worrisome and distracting. The reader may become irritated at those imperfections, lose interest in the story, put it down and never pick it up again.

Every character that you write into your story should be, in some way, integral to the plot. No one else should be able to act or react in they way that character does and his/her actions should push the plot forward, complicate the plot, or twist the plot in a fresh direction. If the new character can be interchanged for another, you’re using the wrong the character or you have a weak plot point. My advice, yank that string out and re-knit that scene.

~Kristal Lee

Finally got a chance to watch “The Wolfman” on DVD with the hubby last night. Ahem…it’s not going on my let’s watch this again list. With a cast that includes Benecio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Hugo Weaving, I was expecting more ummph and angst!


It was apparent after a few minutes that the actors were not committed to their characters. They were going through the motions, and perhaps they were technically on cue, but there was no depth or emotions behind their efforts. (Except for Emily Hunt. She did bring life to the scenes whenever she was on screen. So kudos to her for givin’ it her all.)
I did at least enjoy the flick. It seems a throw back to “The Wolf Man” with Lon Chaney, Jr., especially the wolf man costuming. When Benecio’s character, Lawrence Talbot, transformed…for a moment I thought I was watching the 1941 version. Not sure if that was the director’s intention in regards to the special effects, so I’ll leave it at that.

During the movie, I pondered the impact of flat characters. That I was thinking about anything else while the story unfolded speaks volumes. If the characters aren’t committed to their tale, why should I?

I think to buy into a character’s story, we need to understand his/her motivation for being there and a strong emotion must be attached to it. I never got that in this film. Lawrence Talbot returns home to his estranged family after learning his brother has disappeared. It’s apparent that Lawrence doesn’t have an emotional attachment to his family so I kept wondering why is he there and why does he care. Neither question was fully answered, so I ended up with the conclusion that he had to return home for there to be a story. Yikes!

Big lesson learned there on a character’s internal motivation.

The external motivation may propel the plot, but the internal motivation fuels the drive to get there. Addressing only the surface issues results in flat characters because there are no layers to explore.

IMHO, a book, a film, a play, should be about the hero/heroine’s journey of self discovery and we come along because want to cheer them when they face obstacles, sympathize or criticize when they make mistakes, and give a pat on the back when they succeed. As observers, we want to feel and experience the emotion in a work of fiction. Without it, we might as well read an encyclopedia.

~Kristal Lee