empressbrooke
It would have been nice to have had a more ambiguous bad guy, it would have made for a more interesting story; the villain was way too over the top. He hunted endangered animals for money, and he destroyed rain forests, and he liked shooting people, and he blew things up, and he had a grudge against the main character's family, and hey, his girlfriend's hobby is making shrunken heads, sometimes while the victim is still alive! Can you tell he's evil yet? What if he'd had a more legitimate motive instead?
A note of apology: I see from glancing over my reviews for Rollins' previous books that I have used the word "fun" in every single one. And I already complained about a too-evil villain in [b:Deep Fathom|294045|Deep Fathom|James Rollins|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173469857s/294045.jpg|1018137]. I guess that books filled with clichés lend themselves to clichéd reviews.