Search
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Charm Offensive in Books
Sep 2, 2021
A delightful reality show romantic comedy
Dev Deshpande works on the set of Ever After, a reality dating show he's loved since he was a kid. He truly believes in the show's premise of happily ever after, even as his own six-year-relationship with Ryan, a co-worker, ends. Then the show casts Charles Winshaw, a handsome millionaire tech genius as their next prince. Charlie has only agreed to come on the show to fix his awkward image, which has made it impossible for him to get another job in tech. He's terrible in front of the cameras and even worse with the women he's supposed to woo. Dev is assigned as his handler, a last ditch attempt to save Ever After. As he works to get Charlie to open up, the two connect, and realize that their chemistry is far better than anything Charlie has with his potential love interests. But Ever After demands a fairy tale ending--what does that mean for Charlie and Dev?
"And maybe then Dev will forget that in his own life, happily ever afters are never guaranteed."
This is a truly lovely book, with a great romance filled with crackling tension combined with excellent points about mental illness and being loved unconditionally (or not, as the case may be). I fell head over heels in love with both Charlie and Dev--they are wonderful characters, whom you grow attached to easily.
Dev truly believes in the romance of the show when no one else does--including his ex, Ryan, and Charlie. Yet sweet Dev does not feel worthy of the love he so fervently believes in and can only offer up what he terms "Fun Dev," a light, easygoing version of his personality that does not reflect his true self. Meanwhile Charlie struggles with OCD and anxiety. He has never been in a serious relationship or given himself a true chance to explore whom he likes. The two feel so real and are so well-written: they just fly off the pages. I don't watch the Bachelor and other type shows, but if you do, I'm sure you'll love this book. Even if you don't though, there's so much to enjoy in the dynamics of the story and the examination of the pros and cons of reality shows--a look at how they treat women, racism, sexuality, and more.
"Then again, it turns out Charles Winshaw is no one's definition of a Prince Charming, no matter how much he might look the part."
Cochrun writes and describes anxiety so well and truly mental illness as a whole. It's treated seriously and given the respect it deserves. There is so much great representation in this book, include ace. And while it covers serious issues, at heart, this is a romance, and oh, it's so cute! There's so much steamy, sexual tension between Charlie and Dev. So many hot scenes, so much love and wondering and flirting... they are adorable together! This book made me smile and laugh and cry; it's so wonderful written and just bursting with goodness.
I do think Charlie probably could have gotten a new job in tech without going on a reality show, but oh well. Overall, this is such an excellent read. It's a wonderful blend of serious and fun and flirty and a great exploration into love and what happily ever after really means.
"And maybe then Dev will forget that in his own life, happily ever afters are never guaranteed."
This is a truly lovely book, with a great romance filled with crackling tension combined with excellent points about mental illness and being loved unconditionally (or not, as the case may be). I fell head over heels in love with both Charlie and Dev--they are wonderful characters, whom you grow attached to easily.
Dev truly believes in the romance of the show when no one else does--including his ex, Ryan, and Charlie. Yet sweet Dev does not feel worthy of the love he so fervently believes in and can only offer up what he terms "Fun Dev," a light, easygoing version of his personality that does not reflect his true self. Meanwhile Charlie struggles with OCD and anxiety. He has never been in a serious relationship or given himself a true chance to explore whom he likes. The two feel so real and are so well-written: they just fly off the pages. I don't watch the Bachelor and other type shows, but if you do, I'm sure you'll love this book. Even if you don't though, there's so much to enjoy in the dynamics of the story and the examination of the pros and cons of reality shows--a look at how they treat women, racism, sexuality, and more.
"Then again, it turns out Charles Winshaw is no one's definition of a Prince Charming, no matter how much he might look the part."
Cochrun writes and describes anxiety so well and truly mental illness as a whole. It's treated seriously and given the respect it deserves. There is so much great representation in this book, include ace. And while it covers serious issues, at heart, this is a romance, and oh, it's so cute! There's so much steamy, sexual tension between Charlie and Dev. So many hot scenes, so much love and wondering and flirting... they are adorable together! This book made me smile and laugh and cry; it's so wonderful written and just bursting with goodness.
I do think Charlie probably could have gotten a new job in tech without going on a reality show, but oh well. Overall, this is such an excellent read. It's a wonderful blend of serious and fun and flirty and a great exploration into love and what happily ever after really means.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Three Heart Echo in Books
May 16, 2018
Three Heart Echo by Keary Taylor ended up on my reading list by yet another mislabeling on NetGalley, I must admit. As seen in the title image above, the book is a paranormal suspense. If you’ve read my blog for any length of time, you’ll no doubt guess that I grabbed it from the horror genre titles. Fortunately, after revisiting its cover I can at least say that its actual genre is the right one. While Three Heart Echo does have some elements of horror, it reads more like a paranormal-themed Lifetime movie.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.
Taking place soon after the death of Jack Caraway, Three Heart Echo tells the story of two vastly different people meeting and, you guessed it, falling in love. It’s not that simple though, and several of the more twisted things that one might expect from a horror novel surface throughout the plot. Iona Faye, a frail woman mourning the death of her fiance, seeks out Sully Whitmore, a man rumored to be able to speak to the dead. Together, the two unravel the darkness of Jack’s past while racing against time to unravel not one, but two curses.
The plot is fairly linear, with only one unexpected twist at the end. That twist defines much of the book though, and I have to admit that I actually felt anger flare up within me. I’ve gotta give Taylor kudos for that one. What I don’t like, besides the heavily romantic subplot, is the fact that, as readers see in many romance books, we’re dealing with two Mary Sue characters. Iona is described as a beautiful fawn whilst Sully is a giant Viking of a man. Catch my drift? Oh, and poor dead Jack? Apparently, he’s a stunner too.
While the plot is straightforward, Taylor also alternates between perspectives on chapters. Now, as a reader, you may think I mean she goes back and forth between past and present. It’s common enough when we read books, after all. Unfortunately, what I mean is that Taylor switches between perspectives of Sully and Iona. For the most part, the switches follow a pattern. There is some story overlap/repetition within those shifts, but it isn’t terrible. What perturbs me about these perspectives is that every now and then, there’s a break to the pattern where it may take some readers a moment to realize that the book has suddenly shifted to the past without warning.
Back to the romance side of things, there are far too many cliches. Poor, helpless main character gets an indescribable pain in their chest and they can’t fathom why it feels like their heart races when they look upon their love interest. As if that’s not bad enough, you know from the get-go that there’s going to be a love story involved. It’s not well enough to leave it a paranormal suspense, we might as well make it a romance too. Because y’know, two attractive people can’t simply be friends!
Speaking of chest pain, there’s another thing about this book that absolutely irked me. I could understand if one character had an odd need to count things. It happens and OCD is a real thing; but, what I’m referring to, is the need by both characters to take exactly five steps, to blink four times, to wait for three heartbeats before they do something so much as take a breath.
Finally, what the hell is a grand opus? The actual term is magnum opus. I’lll hope it was just a typo that was fixed in the final, published copy of the Three Heart Echo. Overall, the story itself is engaging to a degree, but it definitely wasn’t my style. I think it belongs more in the paranormal romance genre than it does horror.
I’d like to thank NetGalley and the author for providing me with a free copy for the purpose of review.
iMoodJournal
Lifestyle and Health & Fitness
App
This beautiful app is an ultimate journal, personal diary and mood charting tool. It can track not...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The House That Jack Built (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Danish director Lars Von Trier is no stranger to controversy. He has certainly divided film fans with some praising his work and some condemning it. The House That Jack Built is his most recent creation, causing audience members at Cannes to either walk out in disgust or stand up and applaud. This seriously mixed reception caught my interest and I wanted to find out what he’d done to generate such a response.
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
I’ve only seen two of his previous films; Antichrist and Melancholia, the former being a film that disturbed me so much I haven’t been able to watch it a second time. Its visceral, raw and harrowing portrayal of sex, violence, and self-mutilation is something that is a thoroughly uncomfortable and unpleasant watch. Because of Antichrist, I felt nervous yet strangely excited to see what The House That Jack Built had in store for me. I was surprised, however, to discover that it is arguably his tamest film to date, with a lot of the more graphic content happening off-screen. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its disturbing moments, but it was a lot less visceral than I was expecting based on its recent backlash.
The film is split into five chapters labelled ‘The Incidents’ and an epilogue, detailing some of the murders that Jack carried out over a 12-year span. Two of these incidents include child abuse and female mutilation, but is presented in a much more psychologically disturbing way rather than uncomfortable close-ups and drawn out scenes that you watch from behind your hands. The House That Jack Built spends more time tapping into Jack’s own psyche than it does the atrocities he commits, with Matt Dillon really stealing the show as the titular character.
It’s also darkly funny in places, which I certainly wasn’t expecting. Dillon’s portrayal of a psychotic killer with OCD is both terrifying and amusing. He is simultaneously charming and unhinged, which is a difficult thing to pull off. He was by far my favourite thing about the film, reminiscent of so many iconic serial killers that have fascinated the general public. The film relied heavily on Jack’s character and inner thoughts so it was great to see Dillon pull it off so brilliantly.
Much like Von Trier’s previous work, The House That Jack Built features lots of symbolism throughout the narrative. In this case, it focuses heavily on religion, art and family, with Jack being challenged on all of these as he recounts the incidents. The voice challenging him is a mystery to us until the third act, where Bruno Ganz’s character is finally revealed to us. I found this reveal to be a little jarring and strange, but not unexpected from one of his films. For me, the third act is where it started to go downhill and I lost interest, which is a real shame after the strength of the first two. Despite seeing some really great analyses online, it wasn’t enough to change my own views on the way it ended. It just seemed a little too out of place for my liking.
The visual style is interesting and combines live action with animation and still images. This feels very random but in the context of this particular film, it actually works in its favour. Both Dillon and Ganz narrate over the animation and still images, giving us monologues that act as food for thought and raise questions about morality, life, death and so on. It’s an intense film in that regard and one that you have to really concentrate on in order to enjoy properly.
The House That Jack Built is a depressing, harrowing and strange film. Its blend of sadistic violence and humour makes it a truly unique horror film that seems to appeal to a very specific audience. It’s not for the faint of heart, and Jack’s misogynistic killing sprees teamed with his nihilistic outlook on life is bound to be uncomfortable for many to witness. As a case study on a serial killer it’s a fascinating watch, but out of the three films I’ve seen, this one is unfortunately the weakest in my eyes.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-the-house-that-jack-built-2018/
Despite running in very different circles in school, Sam Jones and Zoe Miller have more in common than they think: they both want to escape the difficulty that is their home lives. Sam is a quiet loner, content to spend Sundays with her best friend, Will. She loves the stars, but isn't sure she'll ever be able to study them, thanks to her mom, whose life is ruled by obsessive compulsive disorder. Ever since her Dad moved overseas, the burden of caring for her Mom falls squarely on Sam. Meanwhile, at school, Zoe seems carefree and popular. But her charisma hides her secrets: she struggles with the fact that she's adopted. She also has a mom in remission from cancer and a disabled younger brother who is the main focus of her parents. When the girls have a chance meeting at school, they exchange phone numbers, and suddenly find themselves bonding over text messages and a land they've created together: Starworld. Starworld gives Zoe and Sam the escape from reality they both so desperately need. But can it survive all the outside influences and stress each are facing?
"If I have a superpower, it's invisibility. Like the perpetually overcast skies of Portland in winter, I'm part of the background -- a robot with a disappearance drive, the dullness against which everyone else shines."
~Sam
This was an interesting and somewhat different YA novel. I enjoyed the story of two brave girls battling tough circumstances. Boy, poor Zoe and Sam certainly had the weight of the world on their shoulders. I really liked both of our main characters. The book tells the story from each of their perspectives, making it easy to know each girl. I found myself a bit more aligned to Sam--probably because she was queer and shy (like drawn to like, right?). As other reviews have mentioned, some of the book is in texting format, as Sam and Zoe fall into Starworld. Being far removed from teenagehood myself (sigh), I will admit that I did sometimes sort of "fast read" or skim those sections. I appreciated them--because Starworld meant so much to these girls and their friendship--but the text-speak wasn't always the easiest to read and digest.
I had picked this up thinking it was a love story, but it's not a true romance, though there's love in other forms. There's some great representation in this book: a queer character in Sam, plus discussion of adoption, mental illness (OCD and anxiety), disabilities, and more. All were very well treated too, I felt.
The book felt a little slow at times. It felt a little repetitive in its insistence on Zoe feeling different due to being adopted. Still, I was very drawn to Sam and Zoe's story. There was a strength in each of them, and I was intrigued to see what was going to happen. Sam's arc as she struggled with her romantic feelings was especially strong and wonderfully done.
Even though much of the book is serious, it's also very funny at times, with some excellent quotes and zingers. (I really did love Sam and her sense of humor; she was right up my alley.)
"I hate using phones for their original intended purpose. It's like Alexander Graham Bell wondered, Hey, what could maximize the awkwardeness of human-to-human communication? And then answered himself by giving us the ability to speak to one another through stupid disembodied little boxes."
I mean, right? One of the best quotes ever.
So, overall, this book is really a love story of friendship and triumph. It's very easy to root for the characters and get caught up in their lives. I was often just aghast at how much these poor girls had to go through. If you're not necessarily used to text-speak, it may give you a pause, but Starworld is a big part of the book (obviously!) and it's woven well into the story. This was a different and intriguing read, and I'm glad I picked it up. 3.5+ stars (rounded up to 4 here).
"If I have a superpower, it's invisibility. Like the perpetually overcast skies of Portland in winter, I'm part of the background -- a robot with a disappearance drive, the dullness against which everyone else shines."
~Sam
This was an interesting and somewhat different YA novel. I enjoyed the story of two brave girls battling tough circumstances. Boy, poor Zoe and Sam certainly had the weight of the world on their shoulders. I really liked both of our main characters. The book tells the story from each of their perspectives, making it easy to know each girl. I found myself a bit more aligned to Sam--probably because she was queer and shy (like drawn to like, right?). As other reviews have mentioned, some of the book is in texting format, as Sam and Zoe fall into Starworld. Being far removed from teenagehood myself (sigh), I will admit that I did sometimes sort of "fast read" or skim those sections. I appreciated them--because Starworld meant so much to these girls and their friendship--but the text-speak wasn't always the easiest to read and digest.
I had picked this up thinking it was a love story, but it's not a true romance, though there's love in other forms. There's some great representation in this book: a queer character in Sam, plus discussion of adoption, mental illness (OCD and anxiety), disabilities, and more. All were very well treated too, I felt.
The book felt a little slow at times. It felt a little repetitive in its insistence on Zoe feeling different due to being adopted. Still, I was very drawn to Sam and Zoe's story. There was a strength in each of them, and I was intrigued to see what was going to happen. Sam's arc as she struggled with her romantic feelings was especially strong and wonderfully done.
Even though much of the book is serious, it's also very funny at times, with some excellent quotes and zingers. (I really did love Sam and her sense of humor; she was right up my alley.)
"I hate using phones for their original intended purpose. It's like Alexander Graham Bell wondered, Hey, what could maximize the awkwardeness of human-to-human communication? And then answered himself by giving us the ability to speak to one another through stupid disembodied little boxes."
I mean, right? One of the best quotes ever.
So, overall, this book is really a love story of friendship and triumph. It's very easy to root for the characters and get caught up in their lives. I was often just aghast at how much these poor girls had to go through. If you're not necessarily used to text-speak, it may give you a pause, but Starworld is a big part of the book (obviously!) and it's woven well into the story. This was a different and intriguing read, and I'm glad I picked it up. 3.5+ stars (rounded up to 4 here).
BlockyTime - Track your time no need to Start/Stop
Productivity and Utilities
App
BlockyTime, A simple time logger no need to tap Start/Stop. ### App Store Featured of 2016 in China...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Most of the female cast. (2 more)
Poirot's backstory.
Kenneth Branagh's mustache.
Slow-moving with little payoff. (2 more)
Nothing substantial happens for the first hour.
Not entertaining. Perfect example of first world problems.
A Drowzy Whodunit Loaded with Mediocrity
Death on the Nile is the sequel to 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express with director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh returning. The mystery thriller is based on the 1937 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. Death on the Nile has been adapted before as a 1978 film and as a 2004 episode of the Poirot television series starring David Suchet.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
The 2022 film has been completed since December of 2019. The film was moved around several times due to COVID and was pushed back even further after Armie Hammer’s abuse allegations.
Mostly occurring shortly after the events of Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile offers a bit of a look into the past of Hercule Poirot (Branagh). Taking place on the Yser Bridge in Belgium In 1914, a young Poirot advises his Belgian captain to attack the Germans spontaneously without warning. The attack is a success, but Poirot’s captain triggers an explosive after their victory. The explosion leaves Poirot’s face heavily scarred and offers an explanation as to why he always has a mustache.
Poirot reunites with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman, who also returns from Murder on the Orient Express) in Egypt. Bouc is traveling with his mother Euphemia (Annette Bening) and their friends as they celebrate the marriage of Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer). To make matters more complicated, Simon was originally romantically involved with Jaqueline (Emma Mackey) who was also a former friend of Linnet. She now scornfully follows Simon and Linnet around Egypt.
The party travels on the S. S. Karnak, a steamship, along the river Nile. A murder eventually takes place on the steamship, which ignites a desire within Poirot to discover who the killer is before more suffer the same fate.
CGI and visual effects are used to make Kenneth Branagh look younger in the opening sequence of the film. The issue is he looks almost as bad as Henry Cavill did as Superman during the reshoots for Justice League. Branagh’s upper lip is almost nonexistent during this sequence and his philtrum seems to barely move when he speaks. It’s a visual nightmare and a terrible way to jump start a murder mystery.
Poirot travels to a Jazz nightclub where he’s first introduced to Simon, Jacqueline, and Linnet. Poirot spends much of the film embracing his OCD habits and people watching. This first nightclub sequence is about ten minutes long and you’re basically forced to watch people do nothing but dance for that entire time. Armie Hammer’s overly sexual dancing combined with his heavy breathing and constant sweating with both Gal Gadot and Emma Mackey is nauseating even without taking his sexual allegations into consideration.
Nothing really happens in the film for the first hour. Death on the Nile takes its time getting to the murder as little things begin to disappear (like a tube of paint) and Simon and Linnet are nearly crushed to death by a falling rock as they’re practically mid-coitus while sightseeing some pyramids. Emma Mackey gives a particularly strong performance. She is blinded by one-sided love in the film and her performance is a combination of passion, borderline insanity, and a broken heart.
Annette Bening is so cynical that it’s humorous and Jennifer Saunders adds just enough sarcastic bite to remind us ever so slightly of Absolutely Fabulous. Letitia Wright portrays business manager Rosalie Otterbourne. Her performance is intriguing because she’s always fighting for what she feels like she’s rightfully owed; whether it’s the right amount of money for her services or her happiness away from the limelight.
Like Murder on the Orient Express and other Agatha Christie adaptations, the enticing aspect of Death on the Nile is not only its massive and recognizable cast but also the fact that the story is written in a way that everyone is a suspect. The film’s nonchalant way of meandering towards that first murder is frustrating. A deliberate pace is one thing, but Death on the Nile is boring for the most part. Poirot is asked to take a case involving Jacqueline and the safety of Simon and Linnet, but is then mocked for being heartless and not being able to solve the case sooner. The people on board are likely meant to be scared, but come off as rich people not getting what they want the instant they want it.
Death on the Nile crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Turtles All The Way Down in Books
Aug 24, 2019
Marketed As A Mystery But It Isn't (2 more)
Unhealthy Friendships
Unsatisfactory Ending
Mental Illness Representation But No Mystery
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a casual fan who has watched a few of John Green’s YouTube videos and read a few books of his, I can honestly say he seems like such a genuinely honest and funny person. Plus, I have read a book or two of his in the past (Example: Paper Towns) and while I did enjoy this book there were quite a few things that made me stray away from a five or even four-star review.
The first thing that I felt was a let down in this novel was the fact that the book was actually not a mystery novel but instead dealt with more of Aza’s own anxiety. While I do love the fact that the book dealt with the topic of anxiety and mental illness in what I felt like was a realistic way I am disappointed that there was not as much mystery. To me, it seemed like the book was marketed around the fact that Aza was trying to solve the mystery of Russell Pickett and where he went. I incorrectly assumed that this novel would be some kind of Scooby-Doo mystery. We did see the characters wonder about Mr. Pickett’s “magical” escape and we did get an ending where everything was wrapped up and solved but it didn’t seem like the characters worked that hard towards it and the book was more about Aza’s own self-realization.
Speaking (or technically typing) about Aza’s struggle with anxiety and mental health I felt like the book did a good job of realistically representing the struggles and many difficulties people experience. I will say that I have personally never had a problem with mental illness and while I do have people I love and care for go through it my experiences are mainly from trying to help them. Therefore, I am not necessarily an accurate source when it comes to the reality of mental illness. I am able to see what my loved ones experience but those are on two different scales.
The simple fact is there is nothing pretty about struggling with mental illness. No matter how hard people try no one is able to always able to stay above the rainbow. Everyone has their bad days and Aza’s experiences, while cringe-worthy in some cases (Ex: digging into her fingernail and swallowing hand sanitizer) is the reality for many people.
While I am pleased by the fact that this book dealt with mental illness and the struggles that come along with it there are a few things that I am disappointed by besides the let down on the mystery front. Overall, the ending was not satisfying. While yes, we were able to see Aza grow and confront the fact that she will always have bad days and good days I felt like certain endings or wrap-ups were not satisfactory. One huge thing I felt strongly about was Aza’s relationships. With Daisy, her best friend, we eventually find out she has been writing about Aza in her fanfiction. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is that Daisy finally exposes her true feelings about her best friend. Turns out Daisy more or less has a lot of bottled up issues resolving Aza and reading Aza’s reaction to this is simply heartbreaking. I also felt that the ending where they simply go back to being friends was not good enough for me. If I found out one of my best friends had been writing hurtful things about me behind my back I would, of course, do what Aza did and confront them but I also do not think I could go back to being friends. Friendships are based on trust and respect for one another and Daisy was not being a true friend.
Now that I have gotten through my thoughts and let downs of the novel there were redeeming qualities. As mentioned above I am a huge fan of representation from several different areas such as mental health as is represented in this novel. This book gave representation to people who on a regular basis may not receive the care they are entitled to or feel like they are alone in the world. This book gives these people ownage and that is a truly beautiful thing. John Green, I believe, wrote this based on his own experiences with anxiety (though obviously, it is not his exact account) and I, therefore, feel like this is a fairly accurate source to read when wondering about the realities of anxiety. Now, I know this book is fiction but I personally feel like it did a great job on that front, which is what I believe John Green was aiming for.
Would I Recommend It?: Maybe. I do enjoy certain aspects of this book such as the amazing representation of mental illness such as OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and anxiety. Not to mention I truly loved the mentions of fanfiction. However, there were a few bits here and there that made my rating decrease down to three-stars. One of the main things was the fact that the book, from my point of view, appeared to be marketed with the mystery factor and while it was solved the solution was a letdown and the book wasn’t truly focused on the mystery. Plus, Aza’s relationships with her friends seemed to be unhealthy and the last chapter or two of the book did not hold a satisfactory ending for me.
The first thing that I felt was a let down in this novel was the fact that the book was actually not a mystery novel but instead dealt with more of Aza’s own anxiety. While I do love the fact that the book dealt with the topic of anxiety and mental illness in what I felt like was a realistic way I am disappointed that there was not as much mystery. To me, it seemed like the book was marketed around the fact that Aza was trying to solve the mystery of Russell Pickett and where he went. I incorrectly assumed that this novel would be some kind of Scooby-Doo mystery. We did see the characters wonder about Mr. Pickett’s “magical” escape and we did get an ending where everything was wrapped up and solved but it didn’t seem like the characters worked that hard towards it and the book was more about Aza’s own self-realization.
Speaking (or technically typing) about Aza’s struggle with anxiety and mental health I felt like the book did a good job of realistically representing the struggles and many difficulties people experience. I will say that I have personally never had a problem with mental illness and while I do have people I love and care for go through it my experiences are mainly from trying to help them. Therefore, I am not necessarily an accurate source when it comes to the reality of mental illness. I am able to see what my loved ones experience but those are on two different scales.
The simple fact is there is nothing pretty about struggling with mental illness. No matter how hard people try no one is able to always able to stay above the rainbow. Everyone has their bad days and Aza’s experiences, while cringe-worthy in some cases (Ex: digging into her fingernail and swallowing hand sanitizer) is the reality for many people.
While I am pleased by the fact that this book dealt with mental illness and the struggles that come along with it there are a few things that I am disappointed by besides the let down on the mystery front. Overall, the ending was not satisfying. While yes, we were able to see Aza grow and confront the fact that she will always have bad days and good days I felt like certain endings or wrap-ups were not satisfactory. One huge thing I felt strongly about was Aza’s relationships. With Daisy, her best friend, we eventually find out she has been writing about Aza in her fanfiction. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is that Daisy finally exposes her true feelings about her best friend. Turns out Daisy more or less has a lot of bottled up issues resolving Aza and reading Aza’s reaction to this is simply heartbreaking. I also felt that the ending where they simply go back to being friends was not good enough for me. If I found out one of my best friends had been writing hurtful things about me behind my back I would, of course, do what Aza did and confront them but I also do not think I could go back to being friends. Friendships are based on trust and respect for one another and Daisy was not being a true friend.
Now that I have gotten through my thoughts and let downs of the novel there were redeeming qualities. As mentioned above I am a huge fan of representation from several different areas such as mental health as is represented in this novel. This book gave representation to people who on a regular basis may not receive the care they are entitled to or feel like they are alone in the world. This book gives these people ownage and that is a truly beautiful thing. John Green, I believe, wrote this based on his own experiences with anxiety (though obviously, it is not his exact account) and I, therefore, feel like this is a fairly accurate source to read when wondering about the realities of anxiety. Now, I know this book is fiction but I personally feel like it did a great job on that front, which is what I believe John Green was aiming for.
Would I Recommend It?: Maybe. I do enjoy certain aspects of this book such as the amazing representation of mental illness such as OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) and anxiety. Not to mention I truly loved the mentions of fanfiction. However, there were a few bits here and there that made my rating decrease down to three-stars. One of the main things was the fact that the book, from my point of view, appeared to be marketed with the mystery factor and while it was solved the solution was a letdown and the book wasn’t truly focused on the mystery. Plus, Aza’s relationships with her friends seemed to be unhealthy and the last chapter or two of the book did not hold a satisfactory ending for me.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Pirate's Mark in Tabletop Games
Mar 29, 2021
I simply cannot get enough of pirate games! I know some gamers are tired of pirates and zombies and Mediterranean trading, and I most certainly understand that. However, I’m just a sucker for some themes, and pirates are one. I am also growing to love press-your-luck style games for that giant helping of luck. I mean, how different is it from rolling a die and basing turns on those results? In this case it is flipping over cards instead of flipping the number of cards rolled. Similar, but different. In any case, today I take a look at Pirate’s Mark from first-time designers, artist, and publisher. Let’s see if I have found a treasure or contracted scurvy from the ordeal.
Pirate’s Mark is a bluffing, bidding, press-your-luck card game about finding treasure in the sea and avoiding contracting the Pirate’s Mark: the mark of death. In it players are pirates searching the seas by boasting about how many treasures they expect they will find, flipping over cards, and dealing with any consequences of their pulls. The last pirate to remain unmarked at the end of the game will be the winner and richest of all pirates on the vast seas.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, 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 online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, include the correct number of cards as described in the rulebook for the number of players. Once the cards are shuffled they will be laid out in a 10 x 15 grid on the table, face-down. The Compass Rose card and die are placed near the card grid and the game is ready to begin!
On a turn a short bidding round commences with players announcing how many cards they believe they can pull from the grid without uncovering a Pirate’s Mark card. This bidding goes around the table with bids increasing with each player until one player calls the bluff and forces the last player to bid to take their turn. That player then pulls a number of cards face-up from the sea and resolves any cards that are immediate, stashes cards that are treasures, and holds cards that contain the phrase, “Play this card,” to be used at a later time.
If the turn is uneventful, by not revealing any Pirate’s Mark cards, then the game continues with bidding and pulling. However, once a pirate reveals a Pirate’s Mark card, they are marked and cannot participate in the bidding any longer (unless they find a way to unmark themselves, which IS possible). Marked players can get back in the game by calling another player’s bluff correctly. There is indeed risk here as a marked player that incorrectly calls a bluff is permanently dead and out of the game.
There are some more rules for the end of the game phase called, “Duel Mode,” but I will let you discover those on your own. Play continues in this fashion until one player is standing and unmarked. This player wins the game and the others need to pack up the 130 cards that were setup. Okay, I added that last part.
Components. This game is a ton of square cards and a fantastic d12 that is only used for the two-player variant. The cards are all glossy, but good quality, and feature photos (akin to screencaps from movies) instead of illustrations. I find the theme to be very present in not only the press-your-luck and bidding/bluffing mechanics, but also in the design of the cards and the photos used. It feels like a piratey game and plays like a piratey game. Like I said, the d12 is fabulous, and I actually happen to own a set of dice that I use for my RPG campaigns… sometimes. All in all the game has some good components and looks great on the table.
So I have some good AND bad news to deliver. First the bad. Some cards that are pulled are way too overpowered. One is called “Blackbeard’s Sword.” It allows the player to “peek under the number of cards left in your bid.” I used this card on a bid of 22 cards and was able to pull all safe cards because this allowed me to see 22 cards and avoid any Pirate’s Marks. Super OP if you ask me. The only other bad I have here is setup. There are 130 cards to be sorted, shuffled, and laid out in a nice-looking grid before the game can be played. For those of us with slight or full-blown OCD that is a nightmare. Luckily, I only stress if the cards are way out of whack instead of just slightly askew.
Now for all the good. I like this game quite a bit. To offset some of the OP of the aforementioned card, the game comes with some pretty great Lucky and Curse cards to be pulled. A couple Lucky cards are, “Drop Anchor,” which ends the player’s turn when revealed, thus negating any Mark pulls, and “Flying Dutchman,” which can be played on a marked player to instantly kill them. Now, I do not condone murder normally, but when playing a pirate game, it is to be expected. The Curses pulled are equally unlucky. “Winds of Fate” allows the person who called the bluff to choose the rest of the cards to be pulled for your turn. OUCH! Especially if they had used “Blackbeard’s Sword” and know where one or more Pirate’s Marks are hidden. Similarly unlucky is “Isla Muerta” which penalizes the player if they have 10 or more treasure cards and pull a Pirate’s Mark – they die instantly from the curse! These are just a few examples of some cards that can be encountered during play, and there are a whole lot more of them included.
I do so enjoy bluffing and luck-based games more and more, and Pirate’s Mark certainly gives it to me on those fronts. Being able to just whisk away 20 or more cards because you happen to have that coveted card you used is devilishly fun. Watching the other players seethe with envy as you pull treasure after treasure and avoid Marks is like winning $20 on a scratch-off. It won’t change your life, but it will give a shot of adrenaline and euphoria for a few minutes. I think Pirate’s Mark fills a void of straight bidding, bluffing, and luck that certainly matches the theme perfectly, and remains a good game as well.
Also, if you happen across one of the expansions, “Parrghty Mode,” it adds another five players to the game and bumps up the count of cards in play from 130 to a whopping 168! This is not for the small of table. I wish there was room inside the base game’s box to fit these extra cards, but alas, there is not.
So if you are like me and enjoy games on the lighter side that perfectly match game to theme, then you have to check out Pirate’s Mark. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a haunting 8 / 12. I certainly recommend it and will now be finding a place in my main shelf unit for it. Hmm, which game do I make walk the plank…?
Pirate’s Mark is a bluffing, bidding, press-your-luck card game about finding treasure in the sea and avoiding contracting the Pirate’s Mark: the mark of death. In it players are pirates searching the seas by boasting about how many treasures they expect they will find, flipping over cards, and dealing with any consequences of their pulls. The last pirate to remain unmarked at the end of the game will be the winner and richest of all pirates on the vast seas.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, 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 online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, include the correct number of cards as described in the rulebook for the number of players. Once the cards are shuffled they will be laid out in a 10 x 15 grid on the table, face-down. The Compass Rose card and die are placed near the card grid and the game is ready to begin!
On a turn a short bidding round commences with players announcing how many cards they believe they can pull from the grid without uncovering a Pirate’s Mark card. This bidding goes around the table with bids increasing with each player until one player calls the bluff and forces the last player to bid to take their turn. That player then pulls a number of cards face-up from the sea and resolves any cards that are immediate, stashes cards that are treasures, and holds cards that contain the phrase, “Play this card,” to be used at a later time.
If the turn is uneventful, by not revealing any Pirate’s Mark cards, then the game continues with bidding and pulling. However, once a pirate reveals a Pirate’s Mark card, they are marked and cannot participate in the bidding any longer (unless they find a way to unmark themselves, which IS possible). Marked players can get back in the game by calling another player’s bluff correctly. There is indeed risk here as a marked player that incorrectly calls a bluff is permanently dead and out of the game.
There are some more rules for the end of the game phase called, “Duel Mode,” but I will let you discover those on your own. Play continues in this fashion until one player is standing and unmarked. This player wins the game and the others need to pack up the 130 cards that were setup. Okay, I added that last part.
Components. This game is a ton of square cards and a fantastic d12 that is only used for the two-player variant. The cards are all glossy, but good quality, and feature photos (akin to screencaps from movies) instead of illustrations. I find the theme to be very present in not only the press-your-luck and bidding/bluffing mechanics, but also in the design of the cards and the photos used. It feels like a piratey game and plays like a piratey game. Like I said, the d12 is fabulous, and I actually happen to own a set of dice that I use for my RPG campaigns… sometimes. All in all the game has some good components and looks great on the table.
So I have some good AND bad news to deliver. First the bad. Some cards that are pulled are way too overpowered. One is called “Blackbeard’s Sword.” It allows the player to “peek under the number of cards left in your bid.” I used this card on a bid of 22 cards and was able to pull all safe cards because this allowed me to see 22 cards and avoid any Pirate’s Marks. Super OP if you ask me. The only other bad I have here is setup. There are 130 cards to be sorted, shuffled, and laid out in a nice-looking grid before the game can be played. For those of us with slight or full-blown OCD that is a nightmare. Luckily, I only stress if the cards are way out of whack instead of just slightly askew.
Now for all the good. I like this game quite a bit. To offset some of the OP of the aforementioned card, the game comes with some pretty great Lucky and Curse cards to be pulled. A couple Lucky cards are, “Drop Anchor,” which ends the player’s turn when revealed, thus negating any Mark pulls, and “Flying Dutchman,” which can be played on a marked player to instantly kill them. Now, I do not condone murder normally, but when playing a pirate game, it is to be expected. The Curses pulled are equally unlucky. “Winds of Fate” allows the person who called the bluff to choose the rest of the cards to be pulled for your turn. OUCH! Especially if they had used “Blackbeard’s Sword” and know where one or more Pirate’s Marks are hidden. Similarly unlucky is “Isla Muerta” which penalizes the player if they have 10 or more treasure cards and pull a Pirate’s Mark – they die instantly from the curse! These are just a few examples of some cards that can be encountered during play, and there are a whole lot more of them included.
I do so enjoy bluffing and luck-based games more and more, and Pirate’s Mark certainly gives it to me on those fronts. Being able to just whisk away 20 or more cards because you happen to have that coveted card you used is devilishly fun. Watching the other players seethe with envy as you pull treasure after treasure and avoid Marks is like winning $20 on a scratch-off. It won’t change your life, but it will give a shot of adrenaline and euphoria for a few minutes. I think Pirate’s Mark fills a void of straight bidding, bluffing, and luck that certainly matches the theme perfectly, and remains a good game as well.
Also, if you happen across one of the expansions, “Parrghty Mode,” it adds another five players to the game and bumps up the count of cards in play from 130 to a whopping 168! This is not for the small of table. I wish there was room inside the base game’s box to fit these extra cards, but alas, there is not.
So if you are like me and enjoy games on the lighter side that perfectly match game to theme, then you have to check out Pirate’s Mark. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a haunting 8 / 12. I certainly recommend it and will now be finding a place in my main shelf unit for it. Hmm, which game do I make walk the plank…?
