Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated 22 Jump Street (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019 (Updated Jun 29, 2019)
22 Jump Street is ingeniously self-aware. (3 more)
It's a fun film with lots of laughs and good action.
Channing Tatum and Ice Cube are both hilarious.
It ends with an unforgettably awesome credits sequence.
22 Jump Street may be a familiar foray, but this summer bromance still manages to be loads of fun and is without a doubt one of the funniest movies of the year.
Officers Schmidt and Jenko are back again for the biggest bromance of the summer. Previously on the film 21 Jump Street, this pair of police officers went undercover, disguised as high school students, to stop the spread of a new drug that was being distributed throughout the campus. Their mission was a success, and now the buddy cop duo returns with a new assignment – or actually the same assignment – but this time they’re going to college! 22 Jump Street has essentially the same exact premise as its predecessor and shamelessly spares no expense in letting you know it. It’s a running joke throughout the film with characters blatantly reminding you of the similarities. It may be a familiar foray, but 22 Jump Street still manages to be loads of fun and is without a doubt one of the funniest movies of the year.
One of the strengths of 22 Jump Street is that it never takes itself too seriously. Right off the bat, it sarcastically sets the stage through a cheesy and overly-dramatic recap of the first film that feels like it’s straight out of a ‘90s TV series. The movie continues to poke fun at itself every step of the way, reminding you that the creators are very much in on the joke. Rather than coming off as a lazy rehash, 22 Jump Street’s self-awareness makes it feel fresh and inviting. The whole movie plays out like a fourth-wall-breaking inside-joke between the actors and the audience. It openly acknowledges that it’s silly and redundant, but in doing so, it encourages us to put that aside and just sit back and have a good time. All in all, I most certainly did have a good time, and 22 Jump Street ended up being far more funny and enjoyable than I ever expected.
As much as I liked the movie, I have to say that it’s awfully heavy on the bromance. Many of the jokes revolve around the relationship between Jonah Hill’s Schmidt and Channing Tatum’s Jenko, and it gets to be pretty excessive and overdone. While Schmidt struggles to fit in at college, Jenko is accepted with open arms and quickly befriends the star quarterback Zook, played by Wyatt Russell, who recruits him to join the university football team. This puts a serious strain on Schmidt and Jenko’s friendship, and the film revels in their troubled relationship, portraying them like a bickering couple. The problem, however, is that it continuously stresses this bromance to the point where it becomes more awkward than funny. Additionally, as Schmidt feels more and more out of place without Jenko, I think Jonah Hill similarly falls more and more out of place in this film.
Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum make for an adequate comedic pair, however I find that Hill struggles in scenes without his co-star. While I respect Hill as an actor, it’s Tatum that truly carries the film, further establishing himself as a Hollywood star. He’s not only the funnier of the two, but he’s also highly entertaining and a perfect fit for an action star. He’s a natural in the movie’s comical action sequences, which include car chases, shootouts, and a well-choreographed fight scene on the beaches of Cancun. The movie drags on through Hill’s mopey solo scenes, only to be reinvigorated by Tatum’s humor and enthusiasm. Though the two of them play well together, I can’t help but feel like perhaps Hill should consider sticking to more dramatic roles.
While some of Hill’s attempts at humor fall flat, most of the comedy in the movie does work. Ice Cube is a stand-out in his return as police captain Dickson and his short temper creates some of the movie’s more memorable scenes. Meanwhile Tatum’s Jenko makes for a perfectly lovable and amusing airhead. The movie is chock-full of clever self-referential jokes and has an elaborate credits scene that expertly basks in its own egotism. 22 Jump Street is a movie that knows full well what it is and is proud of it.
22 Jump Street may be more of the same, but it’s completely content with that and wagers that you will be too. It’s a fun and comical adventure through college, and is coincidentally one of the best comedies of the year.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 12.2.14.)
One of the strengths of 22 Jump Street is that it never takes itself too seriously. Right off the bat, it sarcastically sets the stage through a cheesy and overly-dramatic recap of the first film that feels like it’s straight out of a ‘90s TV series. The movie continues to poke fun at itself every step of the way, reminding you that the creators are very much in on the joke. Rather than coming off as a lazy rehash, 22 Jump Street’s self-awareness makes it feel fresh and inviting. The whole movie plays out like a fourth-wall-breaking inside-joke between the actors and the audience. It openly acknowledges that it’s silly and redundant, but in doing so, it encourages us to put that aside and just sit back and have a good time. All in all, I most certainly did have a good time, and 22 Jump Street ended up being far more funny and enjoyable than I ever expected.
As much as I liked the movie, I have to say that it’s awfully heavy on the bromance. Many of the jokes revolve around the relationship between Jonah Hill’s Schmidt and Channing Tatum’s Jenko, and it gets to be pretty excessive and overdone. While Schmidt struggles to fit in at college, Jenko is accepted with open arms and quickly befriends the star quarterback Zook, played by Wyatt Russell, who recruits him to join the university football team. This puts a serious strain on Schmidt and Jenko’s friendship, and the film revels in their troubled relationship, portraying them like a bickering couple. The problem, however, is that it continuously stresses this bromance to the point where it becomes more awkward than funny. Additionally, as Schmidt feels more and more out of place without Jenko, I think Jonah Hill similarly falls more and more out of place in this film.
Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum make for an adequate comedic pair, however I find that Hill struggles in scenes without his co-star. While I respect Hill as an actor, it’s Tatum that truly carries the film, further establishing himself as a Hollywood star. He’s not only the funnier of the two, but he’s also highly entertaining and a perfect fit for an action star. He’s a natural in the movie’s comical action sequences, which include car chases, shootouts, and a well-choreographed fight scene on the beaches of Cancun. The movie drags on through Hill’s mopey solo scenes, only to be reinvigorated by Tatum’s humor and enthusiasm. Though the two of them play well together, I can’t help but feel like perhaps Hill should consider sticking to more dramatic roles.
While some of Hill’s attempts at humor fall flat, most of the comedy in the movie does work. Ice Cube is a stand-out in his return as police captain Dickson and his short temper creates some of the movie’s more memorable scenes. Meanwhile Tatum’s Jenko makes for a perfectly lovable and amusing airhead. The movie is chock-full of clever self-referential jokes and has an elaborate credits scene that expertly basks in its own egotism. 22 Jump Street is a movie that knows full well what it is and is proud of it.
22 Jump Street may be more of the same, but it’s completely content with that and wagers that you will be too. It’s a fun and comical adventure through college, and is coincidentally one of the best comedies of the year.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 12.2.14.)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Married into a life with the mob, three women living in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City in the late ‘70s find themselves trapped in their husband’s shadows in Andrea Berloff’s debut film, The Kitchen. Based on a 2014 DC Comics graphic novel by the same name, the film focuses on these three female friends facing the aftermath of their husband’s botched crime and subsequent imprisonment. Their Italian crime family promised to take care of them while their spouses are locked away, but their measly support simply isn’t enough when they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay. Tired of being weak and dependent, the ladies band together to take control of their situation by trying to take over the mob.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
The Kitchen stars actresses Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, and Elisabeth Moss as the female trio who work to rise to the top of their crime family by carrying the dead weight of the lazy men who lead it. McCarthy plays Kathy Brennan, a housewife and mother of two, whose seemingly good-natured husband is clearly involved in the wrong crowd. In spite of that, she appears to have a pleasant life at home, but her heavy reliance on her husband puts her in peril once he’s locked away. On the other hand, Haddish and Moss play Ruby and Claire, who are both victimized and disrespected by their husbands, with Claire even being regularly abused. These characteristics help to define the women and their actions as they attempt to upend the male-dominated establishment.
However, despite The Kitchen’s strong set-up, the characters themselves don’t show much depth beyond this, and the film’s performances leave a lot to be desired. McCarthy felt like she was acting in an entirely different movie. I’ve never seen a more passive and unconvincing crime boss. She’s struggling with a balancing act that sees her going between being tough, funny, ruthless, submissive, and sweet. By comparison to the rest of the movie, her whole character feels off-key. Then there’s Haddish who gives the worst acting performance I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m not really a fan of her brand of humor, but I didn’t like her dramatic turn here either. She just delivers snarky lines with attitude and death glares before walking off-camera in practically every shot she’s in. It’s almost funny how cheesy and over-the-top it is. You can’t just go mean-mugging your way through a whole major motion picture and expect to be taken seriously.
On a more positive note, Moss was much more impressive as Claire, who is fed up with being beaten down and bullied, and is determined to learn how to defend herself. She partners up with Domhnall Gleeson’s hitman character Gabriel who teaches her how to kill. Their relationship ends up being perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole movie, and it has something of a Bonnie and Clyde quality to it. I only wish we could have seen it fleshed out a bit more.
For all of its potential, especially in terms of portraying female empowerment, The Kitchen regrettably winds up being a generic, inconsistent, and lethargic affair. I personally love the premise of the film. It’s a bad ass statement to any man who has ever said that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. It sticks up a middle finger to sexism by taking the action to the criminal streets of Hell’s Kitchen where the women rise to power. Unfortunately, despite the kick-ass feminist concept, I found that the film’s attempt at empowerment never really manifests into anything meaningful.
Instead, The Kitchen feels messy and uninspired. There isn’t a single scene in the entire film that I would consider to be good. The story is thin, the suspense is absent, the setting is bland, the tone is confusing, and the characters are mostly uninspired. I hate to even say it, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of last year’s train-wreck of a film, Gotti, starring John Travolta. I think both of these films had a lot of promise, but seriously failed to deliver. As someone who loves a good gangster movie, I feel really disappointed.
There’s ultimately very little I liked about The Kitchen. The movie lacks a pulse, and the stakes never feel significant, not even as the body count piles up. The set design shows no strong sense of place or time period. Most of the settings outside seemed to be looking at nondescript sidewalks that could have been filmed anywhere. With the setting of Hell’s Kitchen, I can’t help but immediately think of The Godfather. Similarly, the use of The Rolling Stones in the trailer evokes thoughts of Scorsese and Goodfellas. Unfortunately, this movie clearly doesn’t even come close to comparing to either of those classics. This movie’s plot is weak, the betrayals are obvious, and the ending is uncomfortably idiotic. Despite it all, however, I find myself still interested in The Kitchen’s graphic novel at least, because I can’t imagine it being this bad.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tides of Madness in Tabletop Games
Dec 7, 2021
As you know, the world of board games is quite vast – there are so many games out there, I feel like I can barely keep up! So oftentimes when I come across a game, it’s not necessarily a new one. Enter Tides of Madness. It maaaay sound familiar, and that is because it is a reimplementation of Tides of Time (which we have reviewed before). Is this just a Cthulhian re-theme of the same game, or does it alter the gameplay at all? Keep reading to find out!
Tides of Madness is a game of card drafting and set collection in which 2 players are trying to amass the most points by the end of 3 rounds. To setup for a game, shuffle the deck and deal 5 cards to each player. Place the rest aside as a draw deck, and place the Madness tokens within reach. Each of the 3 rounds is broken down into 3 phases: Drafting, Scoring, and Refresh. During the Drafting phase, each player will choose one card from their hand to keep, and place it face-down in front of them. Once both players have chosen their card, they will be revealed simultaneously and placed in your tableau. Take the remaining cards from your hand and pass them to your opponent. You now draft another card from this new hand, and will then pass the cards again. Drafting continues in this fashion until both players have no cards remaining in hand.
The next phase, Scoring, now begins. Players check their tableau and take a Madness token for each card with a Madness icon. The player with the most Madness this round can choose to gain an additional 4 VP or heal (discard) one Madness token. An important note – if at any time a player receives 9 or more Madness tokens, they immediately lose the game! So keep an eye on those cards, and know when to heal. Next, players will score the cards based on printed objectives – sets of suits, majority of a suit, etc. Points are tallied on the score pad. Finally, the Refresh phase gets you ready for the next round. Each player collects their tableau and selects one card to keep for the next round, and another card to discard from the game. Players simultaneously reveal their kept card and it starts the round already in their tableau. Players will draw 2 new cards to total 5 in hand, and the next round is ready to begin. Play ends either if a player has 9 or more Madness, or after a total of 3 rounds. After the 3rd and final round, all points are added up and the player with the highest score wins.
So if you’re thinking this game is basically Tides of Time, you’re pretty much correct. The only difference between the two is the concept/mechanic of the Madness tokens. And honestly, I think the inclusion of the tokens elevates the strategy a bit. In Tides of Time, it really is all about set collection. But with Madness tokens, you’ve got some risk/reward balance to play with. Do you take a card to complete a set even though it gives you a Madness token? Or do you leave it for last so your opponent is forced to take it? The same applies to the extra step in the Scoring phase. Do you risk keeping all your Madness to snag 4 extra VP or is it better (and safer) to heal 1? It just adds another element to the gameplay that makes it feel a little more engaging and exciting than simple set collection.
To touch on components for a minute – this game consists of 18 oversized cards, a bunch of cardboard Madness tokens, a score pad, and small pencil. The artwork on the cards is appropriately thematic and dark, and the text is clear and easy to interpret. The Madness icon on certain cards is a bunch of tentacles on the side of the card, and it is easy to see which cards are affected and which are not. The tokens and score pad are both decent quality as well. Although not 100% necessary, I appreciate the inclusion of a score pad just to help you remember points between rounds. All in all, good production all around.
I have to say that of the two, I prefer Tides of Madness over Tides of Time. You may have noticed that I have rated both games at a 4, but the Madness element in this one just pushes it over the top for me. Both are good games, don’t get me wrong! Either work as a good set collection/drafting game, and are quick to learn and play. Tides of Madness just engages me a little more and that makes the overall gameplay more enjoyable for me. So all in all, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a maddening 4 / 6.
Tides of Madness is a game of card drafting and set collection in which 2 players are trying to amass the most points by the end of 3 rounds. To setup for a game, shuffle the deck and deal 5 cards to each player. Place the rest aside as a draw deck, and place the Madness tokens within reach. Each of the 3 rounds is broken down into 3 phases: Drafting, Scoring, and Refresh. During the Drafting phase, each player will choose one card from their hand to keep, and place it face-down in front of them. Once both players have chosen their card, they will be revealed simultaneously and placed in your tableau. Take the remaining cards from your hand and pass them to your opponent. You now draft another card from this new hand, and will then pass the cards again. Drafting continues in this fashion until both players have no cards remaining in hand.
The next phase, Scoring, now begins. Players check their tableau and take a Madness token for each card with a Madness icon. The player with the most Madness this round can choose to gain an additional 4 VP or heal (discard) one Madness token. An important note – if at any time a player receives 9 or more Madness tokens, they immediately lose the game! So keep an eye on those cards, and know when to heal. Next, players will score the cards based on printed objectives – sets of suits, majority of a suit, etc. Points are tallied on the score pad. Finally, the Refresh phase gets you ready for the next round. Each player collects their tableau and selects one card to keep for the next round, and another card to discard from the game. Players simultaneously reveal their kept card and it starts the round already in their tableau. Players will draw 2 new cards to total 5 in hand, and the next round is ready to begin. Play ends either if a player has 9 or more Madness, or after a total of 3 rounds. After the 3rd and final round, all points are added up and the player with the highest score wins.
So if you’re thinking this game is basically Tides of Time, you’re pretty much correct. The only difference between the two is the concept/mechanic of the Madness tokens. And honestly, I think the inclusion of the tokens elevates the strategy a bit. In Tides of Time, it really is all about set collection. But with Madness tokens, you’ve got some risk/reward balance to play with. Do you take a card to complete a set even though it gives you a Madness token? Or do you leave it for last so your opponent is forced to take it? The same applies to the extra step in the Scoring phase. Do you risk keeping all your Madness to snag 4 extra VP or is it better (and safer) to heal 1? It just adds another element to the gameplay that makes it feel a little more engaging and exciting than simple set collection.
To touch on components for a minute – this game consists of 18 oversized cards, a bunch of cardboard Madness tokens, a score pad, and small pencil. The artwork on the cards is appropriately thematic and dark, and the text is clear and easy to interpret. The Madness icon on certain cards is a bunch of tentacles on the side of the card, and it is easy to see which cards are affected and which are not. The tokens and score pad are both decent quality as well. Although not 100% necessary, I appreciate the inclusion of a score pad just to help you remember points between rounds. All in all, good production all around.
I have to say that of the two, I prefer Tides of Madness over Tides of Time. You may have noticed that I have rated both games at a 4, but the Madness element in this one just pushes it over the top for me. Both are good games, don’t get me wrong! Either work as a good set collection/drafting game, and are quick to learn and play. Tides of Madness just engages me a little more and that makes the overall gameplay more enjoyable for me. So all in all, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a maddening 4 / 6.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated King Hall (Forever Evermore, #1) in Books
Nov 5, 2018
Read the most up to date version of this review over on Ramble Media http://www.ramblemedia.com/?p=20241
I received an ARC of this book and I am so very glad I was given this opportunity as this book really is something else! I devoured it in no time at all, reading until I fell asleep on my kindle, waking up and reading some more. I honestly have not read a book this well written and gripping in a while, and it is most definitely a book worth adding to your to-read list sharpish!
So I suppose you want to know why I find this book so wonderful? Well for once, I am actually rather speechless, in an incredibly good way, as there is just so much good that it's hard to know where to start. Perhaps the one thing I absolutely loved in this book is the plot. A different take on the typical YA Magical genre, the inclusion of Kings, Mys factions, heartbreak, mates and the friendship between these groups, it's all so very different from the norm. But that is one of the greatest aspects of this book, it breaks so many of the standard rules and 'norms' of this genre. It is naughty in parts, funny in others and downright heart breaking at times as well. The plot is superbly paced to guide the reader through everything that takes place, without dragging it's feet or rushing too fast - it is perfectly pitched for your enjoyment. The twists and turns in the plot is another huge advantage as it simply keeps you on the balls of your feet throughout. It's rare to find a book that does this so completely so I have to give credit to Scarlett Dawn for developing such a wonderful plot development.
Something else that is amazing in this book is the dynamic between the characters. They are wonderful. Seriously, they gel so incredibly well with each other and with you as a reader that you feel like the 5th member of the Prodigy group. They are wonderful characters in their own right, but together they truly shine. Jack, a real Jack the lad, so untamed and playful; Pearl, a beauty with a mischievous side; Ezra, dark and mysterious, he exudes sex appeal; and Lily, well what can you say? She's shorter than average, smaller than average, a fiery tempered Shifter which matches her fiery red hair. I love her to bits, mostly because she really reminds me of myself, but also because she is a strong heroine, and these types of characters are really missing from books. She's inspirational and an absolute delight to read, sucking you into her crazy world and dragging you into all their mischief together. Equally, you also get drawn into her heart break, and my heart seriously ached with her with the tragedy she faced. She is an incredibly well written character, and one I honestly cannot wait to learn more about.
Another amazing aspect of this book is the humour which weaves its way throughout. It counteracts the dark undertones of sadness and tension throughout, meaning that although the darkness is there, there is always hope and happiness not far behind. This stops the story from becoming too angsty and helps the reader have a few good belly laughs along the way. The naughtiness of the humour is excellently written, balancing on the tasteful sexual humour rather than being crude. This makes it even more enjoyable to read as it just feels so natural. It's like an old pair of jeans, the book just feels so right as you read it. Although there may be uncomfortable moments (King Kincaid and Venclaire feature in most of them), Scarlett Dawn makes them incredibly enjoyable by using a unique brand of humour to ease the tension, usually through Lily's thoughts. I can only compliment this as it is something I know isn't hard to write and balance correctly.
So I suppose I ought to wrap this on before I gush too much and end up repeating myself. IF you haven't already guessed from reading the review so far, I absolutely, positively ADORED this book (yes, the capitalisation is most definitely needed). It has everything you want in a good read, emotions of all kinds, a fab pace and plot and excellent characters. There's nothing more for me to say other than to tell you to get a copy of this book sooner rather than later and be prepared for a cliff hanger that is out of this world! Now all there is for me to do is twiddle my thumbs and wait very impatiently for the next instalment!
I received an ARC of this book and I am so very glad I was given this opportunity as this book really is something else! I devoured it in no time at all, reading until I fell asleep on my kindle, waking up and reading some more. I honestly have not read a book this well written and gripping in a while, and it is most definitely a book worth adding to your to-read list sharpish!
So I suppose you want to know why I find this book so wonderful? Well for once, I am actually rather speechless, in an incredibly good way, as there is just so much good that it's hard to know where to start. Perhaps the one thing I absolutely loved in this book is the plot. A different take on the typical YA Magical genre, the inclusion of Kings, Mys factions, heartbreak, mates and the friendship between these groups, it's all so very different from the norm. But that is one of the greatest aspects of this book, it breaks so many of the standard rules and 'norms' of this genre. It is naughty in parts, funny in others and downright heart breaking at times as well. The plot is superbly paced to guide the reader through everything that takes place, without dragging it's feet or rushing too fast - it is perfectly pitched for your enjoyment. The twists and turns in the plot is another huge advantage as it simply keeps you on the balls of your feet throughout. It's rare to find a book that does this so completely so I have to give credit to Scarlett Dawn for developing such a wonderful plot development.
Something else that is amazing in this book is the dynamic between the characters. They are wonderful. Seriously, they gel so incredibly well with each other and with you as a reader that you feel like the 5th member of the Prodigy group. They are wonderful characters in their own right, but together they truly shine. Jack, a real Jack the lad, so untamed and playful; Pearl, a beauty with a mischievous side; Ezra, dark and mysterious, he exudes sex appeal; and Lily, well what can you say? She's shorter than average, smaller than average, a fiery tempered Shifter which matches her fiery red hair. I love her to bits, mostly because she really reminds me of myself, but also because she is a strong heroine, and these types of characters are really missing from books. She's inspirational and an absolute delight to read, sucking you into her crazy world and dragging you into all their mischief together. Equally, you also get drawn into her heart break, and my heart seriously ached with her with the tragedy she faced. She is an incredibly well written character, and one I honestly cannot wait to learn more about.
Another amazing aspect of this book is the humour which weaves its way throughout. It counteracts the dark undertones of sadness and tension throughout, meaning that although the darkness is there, there is always hope and happiness not far behind. This stops the story from becoming too angsty and helps the reader have a few good belly laughs along the way. The naughtiness of the humour is excellently written, balancing on the tasteful sexual humour rather than being crude. This makes it even more enjoyable to read as it just feels so natural. It's like an old pair of jeans, the book just feels so right as you read it. Although there may be uncomfortable moments (King Kincaid and Venclaire feature in most of them), Scarlett Dawn makes them incredibly enjoyable by using a unique brand of humour to ease the tension, usually through Lily's thoughts. I can only compliment this as it is something I know isn't hard to write and balance correctly.
So I suppose I ought to wrap this on before I gush too much and end up repeating myself. IF you haven't already guessed from reading the review so far, I absolutely, positively ADORED this book (yes, the capitalisation is most definitely needed). It has everything you want in a good read, emotions of all kinds, a fab pace and plot and excellent characters. There's nothing more for me to say other than to tell you to get a copy of this book sooner rather than later and be prepared for a cliff hanger that is out of this world! Now all there is for me to do is twiddle my thumbs and wait very impatiently for the next instalment!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Harbour in Tabletop Games
Dec 19, 2019
“Ugh, I have too much stone and not enough fish! What am I going to do, just magically convert this stone into fish?” In Harbour, the answer is YES. Harbour is a light economic, worker placement, set collection game with fantasy elements to spice up the theming. Your goal is to amass the most victory points at the end of the game and become the greatest Harbourmaster ever!
In Harbour, you control a gobleeple (I am really horrible at this, but it’s a meeple in the shape of a goblin) who travels around town visiting buildings to enact their special abilities. Using these abilities will help you amass goods whose value is ever-changing on a uniquely-designed market board. Knowing when to sell your wood and livestock to purchase buildings is the key factor to creating a strategic path to income and winning the game of Harbour.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Furthermore, there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
To setup give each player a gobleeple of their color choice (I choose you, purple!), a player board of their choice – or randomly dealt, and one token of each good to later be placed on their warehouse spaces. Place the main market board in the middle of the table with one goods token per space on the market to indicate starting prices for each good. Have each player now assign goods to warehouse spaces not to exceed three total goods stored. Shuffle the main building cards and place out in a grid a number of cards equal to three plus the number of players (seven total in a four-player game). Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you must move your gobleeple to another vacant building, even the starting one on your player mat, or another player’s built building (but you must pay them a good to do so). From there you may take advantage of any special abilities that building offers. It could be adjusting the prices of goods, trading one type of good for another, or allowing you to purchase buildings from the grid. Purchasing buildings brings the game closer to its end, as the end is triggered by a player purchasing their fourth building. The round continues until everyone has had equal amount of turns and the player with the highest VP in buildings wins! I will have you play the game to see the various abilities that each player mat and each building offer.
Components. This is a small game in a small box (ironically it’s a Scott Almes design – you know, of Tiny Epic fame). You are given lots of player mats that feature different characters and abilities that you can choose to emulate. These mats are great, laid out well, and have funny flavor text on them. Also included are the aforementioned painted wooden gobleeples in fun colors and with an even funner shrugging pose. To keep track of your goods and market values you use blocks with stickers applied. In addition to this is a giant stack of cards to represent the buildings you will be visiting and purchasing. I have sleeved mine and they all fit back in the box (even with a few promos included). Everything is of great quality. No problems at all for me, as per usual with Tasty Minstrel Games fare.
I do not own many market and economic games because usually they do not really interest me at all. I do have many worker placement games because I really enjoy the mechanic. This one, though, is special to me. It is one of the games I have Kickstarted that I feel really delivered and fires on all cylinders for me. Your opinions may vary if you have played it, but this game is an absolute gem. It is light, fast, and incredibly fun. There is a slight learning curve if you are not used to either economic or worker placement games, but after a few rounds it will all fall into place. If you are looking for a euro game in fun clothing, I highly recommend Harbour (and it’s a steal right now in stores). Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rousing 10 / 12.
In Harbour, you control a gobleeple (I am really horrible at this, but it’s a meeple in the shape of a goblin) who travels around town visiting buildings to enact their special abilities. Using these abilities will help you amass goods whose value is ever-changing on a uniquely-designed market board. Knowing when to sell your wood and livestock to purchase buildings is the key factor to creating a strategic path to income and winning the game of Harbour.
DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. Furthermore, there is an expansion to this game, but we are not reviewing it at this time. Should we review it in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. -T
To setup give each player a gobleeple of their color choice (I choose you, purple!), a player board of their choice – or randomly dealt, and one token of each good to later be placed on their warehouse spaces. Place the main market board in the middle of the table with one goods token per space on the market to indicate starting prices for each good. Have each player now assign goods to warehouse spaces not to exceed three total goods stored. Shuffle the main building cards and place out in a grid a number of cards equal to three plus the number of players (seven total in a four-player game). Determine the starting player and you are ready to begin!
On your turn you must move your gobleeple to another vacant building, even the starting one on your player mat, or another player’s built building (but you must pay them a good to do so). From there you may take advantage of any special abilities that building offers. It could be adjusting the prices of goods, trading one type of good for another, or allowing you to purchase buildings from the grid. Purchasing buildings brings the game closer to its end, as the end is triggered by a player purchasing their fourth building. The round continues until everyone has had equal amount of turns and the player with the highest VP in buildings wins! I will have you play the game to see the various abilities that each player mat and each building offer.
Components. This is a small game in a small box (ironically it’s a Scott Almes design – you know, of Tiny Epic fame). You are given lots of player mats that feature different characters and abilities that you can choose to emulate. These mats are great, laid out well, and have funny flavor text on them. Also included are the aforementioned painted wooden gobleeples in fun colors and with an even funner shrugging pose. To keep track of your goods and market values you use blocks with stickers applied. In addition to this is a giant stack of cards to represent the buildings you will be visiting and purchasing. I have sleeved mine and they all fit back in the box (even with a few promos included). Everything is of great quality. No problems at all for me, as per usual with Tasty Minstrel Games fare.
I do not own many market and economic games because usually they do not really interest me at all. I do have many worker placement games because I really enjoy the mechanic. This one, though, is special to me. It is one of the games I have Kickstarted that I feel really delivered and fires on all cylinders for me. Your opinions may vary if you have played it, but this game is an absolute gem. It is light, fast, and incredibly fun. There is a slight learning curve if you are not used to either economic or worker placement games, but after a few rounds it will all fall into place. If you are looking for a euro game in fun clothing, I highly recommend Harbour (and it’s a steal right now in stores). Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a rousing 10 / 12.
Why Me? Why Not. by Liam Gallagher
7.5
Rate It
Album Watch
Good things come to those who wait: and so, this summer, Liam Gallagher returns with a new single, a...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 12, 2022
Too Long Of a Setup for a Terrific Payoff
The rap on the films of the DCEU - especially the films directed by Zach Snyder - is that they are too dark, dour and a “downer”, with very little joy or sunshine in the images or themes.
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Blockers (2018) in Movies
Apr 25, 2018
Decent
Blockers met my expectations and I'm not saying that's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, it's a decent film that might make you crack a smile or two while you fold a load of laundry. However, it just misses the mark of being in the upper echelon of comedies. Let's dive into this film about three parents trying to stop their kids from losing their virginity on prom night.
Acting: 8
The film revolved mostly around the parents who tested their range in spite of the film being a comedy. Even with less screen time, however, I thought the kids (probably adults in actuality) outshined their parental figures by far. Gideon Adlon was outstanding in her role as Sam, a girl trying to figure things out in her own life, but still keep up with her friends. Her performance allows you to empathize with her character and root for her story to end well. She gives me a bit of a Maika Monroe vibe and that's a good thing.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Butt chugging. I could just stop there really. The entire scene was shot in such an awkward way, it put you right there in the moment. There were a handful of other scenes that were captured perfectly as well, but I won't ruin the experience. Let's just say the gang goes on an adventure to remember and you're left with a few hilarious sequences as a result.
Conflict: 5
I just couldn't get on board with the mission here. It felt like the parents had worse things to worry about than following their kids on prom night. Even they questioned their own aims at times. If you're not on board, you can't really expect me to be.
There was another part of me that thought, "What's the big deal in the first place? Is all this really worth it?" Of course the parents end up asking themselves the same question, but not until they're way in too deep. There were definitely some ways they could have raised the stakes to give the conflict more meaning.
Genre: 7
Was it laugh out loud funny? At times, absolutely. There were certain moments that I definitely wished there were more of, but all in all, I felt the film tiptoed around being balls-to-the-wall hilarious. Sure the comedy lagged in some places, but when it was funny, it was really funny.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
When it wasn't funny, on the other hand, the film just dragged on, leaving for a pretty inconsistent pace. When you waste dialogue on jokes or scenes that aren't funny, the film slows way down as a whole. Definite room for improvement.
Plot: 9
The story takes you on a comedy adventure from one shenanigan to the next. Despite the weak conflict, I thought the story itself was fine. I never felt as if things just happened for the sake of advancing the plot (Pet Peeve #1). The story was far-fetched, but it works within its own realm.
Resolution: 9
Loved the resolution for the parents as they all came to terms with their own realities. There were some moments of mending, laughing, and true feel-good points. I especially enjoyed the resolution for Sam's character. This could have easily been a film about just her and it would have been just as enjoyable if not better.
Overall: 73
Blockers manages to rebound from its very slow start into a decent semblance of a movie. The characters are hilarious and the film can be just as sentimental as it is funny at times. See it...at home.
Acting: 8
The film revolved mostly around the parents who tested their range in spite of the film being a comedy. Even with less screen time, however, I thought the kids (probably adults in actuality) outshined their parental figures by far. Gideon Adlon was outstanding in her role as Sam, a girl trying to figure things out in her own life, but still keep up with her friends. Her performance allows you to empathize with her character and root for her story to end well. She gives me a bit of a Maika Monroe vibe and that's a good thing.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Butt chugging. I could just stop there really. The entire scene was shot in such an awkward way, it put you right there in the moment. There were a handful of other scenes that were captured perfectly as well, but I won't ruin the experience. Let's just say the gang goes on an adventure to remember and you're left with a few hilarious sequences as a result.
Conflict: 5
I just couldn't get on board with the mission here. It felt like the parents had worse things to worry about than following their kids on prom night. Even they questioned their own aims at times. If you're not on board, you can't really expect me to be.
There was another part of me that thought, "What's the big deal in the first place? Is all this really worth it?" Of course the parents end up asking themselves the same question, but not until they're way in too deep. There were definitely some ways they could have raised the stakes to give the conflict more meaning.
Genre: 7
Was it laugh out loud funny? At times, absolutely. There were certain moments that I definitely wished there were more of, but all in all, I felt the film tiptoed around being balls-to-the-wall hilarious. Sure the comedy lagged in some places, but when it was funny, it was really funny.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 6
When it wasn't funny, on the other hand, the film just dragged on, leaving for a pretty inconsistent pace. When you waste dialogue on jokes or scenes that aren't funny, the film slows way down as a whole. Definite room for improvement.
Plot: 9
The story takes you on a comedy adventure from one shenanigan to the next. Despite the weak conflict, I thought the story itself was fine. I never felt as if things just happened for the sake of advancing the plot (Pet Peeve #1). The story was far-fetched, but it works within its own realm.
Resolution: 9
Loved the resolution for the parents as they all came to terms with their own realities. There were some moments of mending, laughing, and true feel-good points. I especially enjoyed the resolution for Sam's character. This could have easily been a film about just her and it would have been just as enjoyable if not better.
Overall: 73
Blockers manages to rebound from its very slow start into a decent semblance of a movie. The characters are hilarious and the film can be just as sentimental as it is funny at times. See it...at home.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated An Anonymous Girl in Books
Aug 20, 2018
The story line has been done, but this makes it feel original (3 more)
The characters are very fleshed out
The authors have done their research about therapists
The world building is fantastic
Intriguing Plot
I had read The Wife Between Us by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen and loved it. When I heard that the same authors were releasing another book, I became giddy and knew I had to read it. Luckily, An Anonymous Girl was a good read.
The pacing for An Anonymous Girl started off very fast which is what I like. I read a quarter of the book right before bed, and I only stopped because I had to go to sleep. I would have read more had I not been so tired. However, once I found out what the motive was behind Dr. Shield's study, the pacing slowed down, and I found myself not being drawn to the book as much although it still held my attention.
I started off enjoying the plot very much. I loved reading about Jess' participation in this strange study. However, like I felt about the pacing, once I learned the true motive behind the study, the plot wasn't as interesting. I don't want to elaborate on the plot because I don't want to give the motive behind the study away in my review. I will say the plot for An Anonymous Girl was well executed. It is an idea that's been written about so many times, but the way Hedricks and Pekkanen wrote about it was very original. There is one plot twists involving the study, but I felt like their aren't any more major plot twists. I kept waiting for more to happen, but they never came. I was left a little confused about the ending. I'm not sure if it was meant to be a plot twist or not.
The world building was written so amazingly! Everything about An Anonymous Girl felt real. It was obvious that the authors had done their research when it came to therapy and how a therapist would act. I felt as if I were watching everything unfold right in front of me. I was constantly worried for Jess, and I wanted to be her friend and help her with what she was going through.
I felt like the characters were very well written. I felt they were fleshed out enough to be enjoyable. It was hard to not like Jess and want to help her. She was an amazing character. Dr. Shields was also well written. As I've stated about the plot, it is obvious that Hendricks and Pekkanen had done their research on how a therapist might act by analyzing situations. I thoroughly enjoyed the character of Dr. Shields. I thought Thomas was well written. I kept wondering what Thomas' motives were, and I was constantly left guessing if he was bad or good. Luckily the ending of the book makes it clear.
Trigger warnings include possible suicide/murder, alcohol (the characters drink wine throughout the book), prescription drugs (Vicodin is mentioned), one count of sexual abuse, swearing, cheating, blackmail, and manipulation.
All in all, An Anonymous Girl is a good read. The plot takes an idea that's been done numerous times and changes it so it feels different. The characters are fleshed out, and the world building is amazing. I would definitely recommend An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 16 and above.
(I received an ecopy of An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen through Netgalley in exchange for an unbiased review. All opinions are my own).
The pacing for An Anonymous Girl started off very fast which is what I like. I read a quarter of the book right before bed, and I only stopped because I had to go to sleep. I would have read more had I not been so tired. However, once I found out what the motive was behind Dr. Shield's study, the pacing slowed down, and I found myself not being drawn to the book as much although it still held my attention.
I started off enjoying the plot very much. I loved reading about Jess' participation in this strange study. However, like I felt about the pacing, once I learned the true motive behind the study, the plot wasn't as interesting. I don't want to elaborate on the plot because I don't want to give the motive behind the study away in my review. I will say the plot for An Anonymous Girl was well executed. It is an idea that's been written about so many times, but the way Hedricks and Pekkanen wrote about it was very original. There is one plot twists involving the study, but I felt like their aren't any more major plot twists. I kept waiting for more to happen, but they never came. I was left a little confused about the ending. I'm not sure if it was meant to be a plot twist or not.
The world building was written so amazingly! Everything about An Anonymous Girl felt real. It was obvious that the authors had done their research when it came to therapy and how a therapist would act. I felt as if I were watching everything unfold right in front of me. I was constantly worried for Jess, and I wanted to be her friend and help her with what she was going through.
I felt like the characters were very well written. I felt they were fleshed out enough to be enjoyable. It was hard to not like Jess and want to help her. She was an amazing character. Dr. Shields was also well written. As I've stated about the plot, it is obvious that Hendricks and Pekkanen had done their research on how a therapist might act by analyzing situations. I thoroughly enjoyed the character of Dr. Shields. I thought Thomas was well written. I kept wondering what Thomas' motives were, and I was constantly left guessing if he was bad or good. Luckily the ending of the book makes it clear.
Trigger warnings include possible suicide/murder, alcohol (the characters drink wine throughout the book), prescription drugs (Vicodin is mentioned), one count of sexual abuse, swearing, cheating, blackmail, and manipulation.
All in all, An Anonymous Girl is a good read. The plot takes an idea that's been done numerous times and changes it so it feels different. The characters are fleshed out, and the world building is amazing. I would definitely recommend An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen to those aged 16 and above.
(I received an ecopy of An Anonymous Girl by Greer Hendricks and Sarah Pekkanen through Netgalley in exchange for an unbiased review. All opinions are my own).