Search
Search results
Cowboy Daddies
7.0
Rate It
Book
Cowboy Daddies: Two Western Romances includes novellas from bestselling spanking romance authors...
Romance Westerns Spanking Erotica Historical Romance
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Heartbreak for Hire in Books
Aug 19, 2021
A wreck of a romance
Brinkley Saunders tells everyone she works as an administrative assistant. But she really works at
Heartbreak for Hire, an undercover operation that specializes in a variety of revenge schemes for jilted lovers, annoyed coworkers, and more. She dropped out of grad school in the aftermath of a disastrous relationship--much to the despair of her mother--but the job helps Brinkley save for her dream of opening her own art gallery. However, when her boss Margo announces she's hiring male Heartbreakers for the first time, Brinkley starts questioning her purpose, especially when one of the new hires is a target she was paid to take down. Markus Cavanaugh is an adjunct anthropology professor at University of Chicago. He doesn't seem like the backstabbing academic she was told to go after... and as she gets to know Markus more and continues to question her role as a Heartbreaker, Brinkley realizes a lot of things aren't what they seem.
"I had my career, my cat, control. The Three C's of avoiding that hopeless cycle of loving someone who didn't love me back."
I feel awful, but this book just did not work for me at all. I almost didn't finish it, but I really try to complete all my ARCs. Ironically I hated most of it except the end, which was actually pretty good. But most of this one had me cringing. Brinkley's job is terrible and makes no sense--I couldn't even see how Heartbreakers and the division of "Egos, Players, Cheaters, and Grifters" would even possibly translate to the real world. Her boss is absolutely awful.
"If we trained men to break women's hearts, what did that say about our mission? What did that say about us?"
The book is filled with ridiculous contrived fights and plot-lines, and I didn't buy the relationship between her and Markus at all. They like each other, hate each other, rinse and repeat, with a bunch of silly "twists" thrown in over and over to keep them apart. Do something and stop whining (this applies equally to them both). It was just boring and stupid, and I couldn't handle all the bad decisions. If there's going to be conflict, I want it to be realistic, and if there's going to be romance, I want to buy into the couple and feel a genuine affection toward them. But with everyone being so hateful to each other, an entire profession created toward tearing people down, and a bunch of random contrived obstacles thrown up to keep Markus and Brinkley apart... I just couldn't handle it.
A lot of other people enjoyed this one far more than me, so hopefully you will too.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Heartbreak for Hire, an undercover operation that specializes in a variety of revenge schemes for jilted lovers, annoyed coworkers, and more. She dropped out of grad school in the aftermath of a disastrous relationship--much to the despair of her mother--but the job helps Brinkley save for her dream of opening her own art gallery. However, when her boss Margo announces she's hiring male Heartbreakers for the first time, Brinkley starts questioning her purpose, especially when one of the new hires is a target she was paid to take down. Markus Cavanaugh is an adjunct anthropology professor at University of Chicago. He doesn't seem like the backstabbing academic she was told to go after... and as she gets to know Markus more and continues to question her role as a Heartbreaker, Brinkley realizes a lot of things aren't what they seem.
"I had my career, my cat, control. The Three C's of avoiding that hopeless cycle of loving someone who didn't love me back."
I feel awful, but this book just did not work for me at all. I almost didn't finish it, but I really try to complete all my ARCs. Ironically I hated most of it except the end, which was actually pretty good. But most of this one had me cringing. Brinkley's job is terrible and makes no sense--I couldn't even see how Heartbreakers and the division of "Egos, Players, Cheaters, and Grifters" would even possibly translate to the real world. Her boss is absolutely awful.
"If we trained men to break women's hearts, what did that say about our mission? What did that say about us?"
The book is filled with ridiculous contrived fights and plot-lines, and I didn't buy the relationship between her and Markus at all. They like each other, hate each other, rinse and repeat, with a bunch of silly "twists" thrown in over and over to keep them apart. Do something and stop whining (this applies equally to them both). It was just boring and stupid, and I couldn't handle all the bad decisions. If there's going to be conflict, I want it to be realistic, and if there's going to be romance, I want to buy into the couple and feel a genuine affection toward them. But with everyone being so hateful to each other, an entire profession created toward tearing people down, and a bunch of random contrived obstacles thrown up to keep Markus and Brinkley apart... I just couldn't handle it.
A lot of other people enjoyed this one far more than me, so hopefully you will too.
I received a copy of this book from Gallery Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated One Night on the Island in Books
Feb 14, 2022
Cleo is heading to the remote Irish island of Salvation for work, but it's personal too. She's about to turn thirty, an age her father never reached, and she's trying to reconcile where she is in life. A columnist who writes about finding love, she's yet to discover it herself. On Salvation, she plans to "self-couple"--a concept brought up by her boss, but Cleo can't help but feel there's something to finding herself. As for Mack Sullivan, he's heading to Salvation to research his ancestry and photograph the island he's heard so much about from his mother and grandmother. Escaping his estranged wife and crumbling life is a bonus, though he'll miss his two sons terribly. It's only when they arrive on the island that Mack and Cleo realize they've booked the same one room cottage--a terrible mix-up on a tiny island with no other accommodations. Forced to live together until the next ferry arrives, the two can barely stand being in the same space. But as time passes on the lovely island, their attitudes change.
This is a very slow moving, slow burn romance that focuses on being thoughtful and deliberate in its descriptions. There's less action and a lot of focus on the island and tons and tons of focus on Cleo and Mack's emotions and thoughts. So many thoughts, so much angst!
As for my thoughts... seriously, even on a small island, no one had a spare room? Not even a little one? Enjoying this book means buying into the premise that two complete strangers were truly willing to share a ONE ROOM cottage--sleeping across from another in a bed and a sofa. Thanks but no thanks. Also odd was Cleo's self-coupling (aka marrying herself) concept, which both she and her boss seemed quite into and even Mack accepted. Hmm...
Far more delightful was Salvation Island and its inhabitants. I could have read an entire book just focused on the enjoyable folks Cleo and Mack ran across, particularly the women Cleo joined at knitting circle and the lively group who gathered at the local pub. And while there were plenty of descriptions of this island, some were quite fun (otters!).
The book is told in a back and forth point of view from Cleo and Mack. They grow on you. It's not their fault they were trapped in the same lodge. This one was a little too slow and emotional for me in the beginning, but I still got a bit tearful at the ending.
I received a copy of this book from Random House / Ballantine and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
This is a very slow moving, slow burn romance that focuses on being thoughtful and deliberate in its descriptions. There's less action and a lot of focus on the island and tons and tons of focus on Cleo and Mack's emotions and thoughts. So many thoughts, so much angst!
As for my thoughts... seriously, even on a small island, no one had a spare room? Not even a little one? Enjoying this book means buying into the premise that two complete strangers were truly willing to share a ONE ROOM cottage--sleeping across from another in a bed and a sofa. Thanks but no thanks. Also odd was Cleo's self-coupling (aka marrying herself) concept, which both she and her boss seemed quite into and even Mack accepted. Hmm...
Far more delightful was Salvation Island and its inhabitants. I could have read an entire book just focused on the enjoyable folks Cleo and Mack ran across, particularly the women Cleo joined at knitting circle and the lively group who gathered at the local pub. And while there were plenty of descriptions of this island, some were quite fun (otters!).
The book is told in a back and forth point of view from Cleo and Mack. They grow on you. It's not their fault they were trapped in the same lodge. This one was a little too slow and emotional for me in the beginning, but I still got a bit tearful at the ending.
I received a copy of this book from Random House / Ballantine and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Knock Knock (2015) in Movies
Nov 2, 2017
The acting is just terrible (1 more)
The whole premise is just ridiculous
What the hell was Keanu thinking?
I came across this on Netflix last night and remembered seeing the trailer for it in the cinema at some point in the past. I vaguely remembered wanting to see it if I ever got the chance. What I definitely didn't remember is that the reason I probably never saw it was down to the sheer number of awful reviews it managed to receive. So, here's another one to add to them.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.
Keanu Reeves is an architect, living in an amazing house with a beautiful wife and two perfect kids. The movie opens by slowly panning through the house, showing us that on literally every single piece of available wall space there's a photo of the happy family. They just look so perfect and content together. Keanu wakes up in bed with his wife and the kids burst in to bring Keanu a father's day chocolate cake. They have some fun and he chases them away, pretending to be monster. Wow, they really are determined to drum home the fact that Keanu has this perfect family life, something he'd be pretty stupid to mess up! Already though, the acting is just awful - the whole setup feels forced, none of it feels natural at all. A crucial plot point that we do discover here though - Keanus character has not had much action in the sack recently...
His wife and kids head off to the beach for the weekend leaving Keanu to try and get on top of his workload, designing some buildings, listening to loud music and 3D printing his work. That is, until he's interrupted late at night by a couple of young girls knocking at his front door. It's raining hard and they claim that their taxi dropped them off for a party, but they think that they're in completely the wrong area. Keanu lets them in to check the party location on his iPad (their phones are soaking wet) while he calls them an Uber. They begin flirting with him, but he resists. He ends up putting their clothes in the tumble dryer, the flirting continues, he continues to resist. Until eventually.... well, lets just say that he more than makes up for the action in the sack he's been missing out on recently.
All I'll say is that things get more intense and more ridiculous after that as the girls stick around and make his life a living hell, despite his attempts to try and get rid of them. It's all really over the top and just plain stupid, but I just had to watch it right to the end to see what happens. One thing it definitely proved though - Keanu Reeves really should stick to just being John Wick. Or Ted "Theodore" Logan.
Christine (14 KP) rated Me Before You in Books
Jul 4, 2017
Ham Handedly Dealing with Sensitive Materials
Contains spoilers, click to show
I did NOT like this book. In fact, there were several sections of this book where I actively hated the book. Before you continue reading, note that I do intend to spoil the story.
First, the only character that has more than 5 lines that I didn't think was awful was Nathan the nurse. Lou, Will and their whole families were terrible! Selfish, rude, cold and uncaring. Maybe my sister is too supportive even at the worst of times, but Treena made me want to scream with her selfishness.
Second, I feel as though they took an exceptionally sensitive subject and kicked it around in the dirt for a while. I would be interested in sitting around discussing the concept of euthanasia. However, I feel like this story focused on all the wrong arguments.
Third, this book did a huge disservice to the paraplegic and quadriplegic community. Even with the addition of the chat rooms with the other members of the community, there is a lot of emphasis on how life will inevitably blow until the end of time if you're in a wheelchair. It felt like a book that was intended to educate and inform people who maybe don't know much about this life and instead, they wrote an extremely whiny story about one man who's a giant asshole.
Fourth, Louisa's rape should have been a major plot point, treated as a juxtaposition to Will's accident. Instead, the treat Lou getting raped by a group of men as an after thought that Will cures with one conversation.
Fifth, the writing was lazy and the pacing was bad. It felt overly long and things were dragged out farther than they needed to be. Also, Will's family's money was a bit of an easy fix. Will could have top of the line everything. He could afford to go on fancy expensive trips. He could afford a nurse to come over several times a day. Imagine how much more real this story would be if Lou was the disabled person. Lou's mom would be the one responsible for her care. This would be a much more dire situation. Will comes across whiny because he has to rely on other people. He doesn't seem like a sad man in a bad situation. He seems like a whiny selfish asshole
Finally, what do these people have against therapy. When someone has been through an experience as traumatic as a car accident that leaves you paralyzed, you should probably speak to a therapist. I do not mean Nathan, the physical therapist. I mean a psychologist. I'm not saying Will wouldn't have ultimately made the same decision, but somehow I think trained licensed professional might have been a better option for Camilla Traynor to hire as opposed to unemployed waitress.
I know I'm apparently in the minority in this, but I HATED this book.
First, the only character that has more than 5 lines that I didn't think was awful was Nathan the nurse. Lou, Will and their whole families were terrible! Selfish, rude, cold and uncaring. Maybe my sister is too supportive even at the worst of times, but Treena made me want to scream with her selfishness.
Second, I feel as though they took an exceptionally sensitive subject and kicked it around in the dirt for a while. I would be interested in sitting around discussing the concept of euthanasia. However, I feel like this story focused on all the wrong arguments.
Third, this book did a huge disservice to the paraplegic and quadriplegic community. Even with the addition of the chat rooms with the other members of the community, there is a lot of emphasis on how life will inevitably blow until the end of time if you're in a wheelchair. It felt like a book that was intended to educate and inform people who maybe don't know much about this life and instead, they wrote an extremely whiny story about one man who's a giant asshole.
Fourth, Louisa's rape should have been a major plot point, treated as a juxtaposition to Will's accident. Instead, the treat Lou getting raped by a group of men as an after thought that Will cures with one conversation.
Fifth, the writing was lazy and the pacing was bad. It felt overly long and things were dragged out farther than they needed to be. Also, Will's family's money was a bit of an easy fix. Will could have top of the line everything. He could afford to go on fancy expensive trips. He could afford a nurse to come over several times a day. Imagine how much more real this story would be if Lou was the disabled person. Lou's mom would be the one responsible for her care. This would be a much more dire situation. Will comes across whiny because he has to rely on other people. He doesn't seem like a sad man in a bad situation. He seems like a whiny selfish asshole
Finally, what do these people have against therapy. When someone has been through an experience as traumatic as a car accident that leaves you paralyzed, you should probably speak to a therapist. I do not mean Nathan, the physical therapist. I mean a psychologist. I'm not saying Will wouldn't have ultimately made the same decision, but somehow I think trained licensed professional might have been a better option for Camilla Traynor to hire as opposed to unemployed waitress.
I know I'm apparently in the minority in this, but I HATED this book.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Signal (2014) in Movies
Apr 30, 2018
Meh
Three college students get more than what they bargained for when they try to track down a computer genius that hacked their computers and end up fighting for their lives instead.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 4
The characters harbored no depth whatsoever. As a result there was never a point in the film where I cared about what happened to any of them. They were stale, moving about the film aimlessly. The only time they were remotely interesting was towards the end and I won't spoil why.
Not only did they bore me, they infuriated me at the same time. The decision-making of main character Nic (Brenton Thwaites) was just maddening. How he repeatedly found himself in the same perilous situations blew my mind. At one point, I remember saying, "At this point, you deserve what happens." You know it's going to be a long film when the main character can't win you over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 4
While there are some points of intrigue, the film seems to bumble along for the most part with much ado about nothing. You recognize that there is a mystery unfolding, but the terrible character development didn't help to raise my level of caring. The two action sequences that are worthwhile don't redeem the film as a whole.
Genre: 4
I love sci-fi. There are too many films to count that have helped shape the genre. When it comes to sci-fi, this ranks towards the bottom of the barrel for me. There are no real points of connection that gave it the spark it needed to capture my interest. The true sci-fi elements come too little too late.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 5
Watching this film is like watching a baby trying to walk, but not quite as cute. You're waiting for the film to collapse at any moment due to its shaky foundation and then you get to a point where you say, "Just be done already." After about the fourth or fifth eyeroll, I was beyond ready for the film's conclusion.
Plot: 3
Just dumb. Do I need to expand on this? The story has enough holes to make swiss cheese jealous. Sure, things became less confusing as the story progressed, but the answers given were beyond far-fetched. I think a stronger story overall is what could have turned the tides of the entire film.
Resolution: 6
From a visuals standpoint, the ending was pretty cool. From a justifiable and satisfaction-level standpoint? Going to take a hard pass. I won't spoil the ending, but I'll just say the payoff is far from worth it. Interesting yes...but incomplete.
Overall: 56
Even before the ending brought the film to a necessary close, there were so many points along the way director William Eubank could have tweaked to improve this film. Alas, it didnt seem to be worth his time and neither should this film be for yours.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 4
The characters harbored no depth whatsoever. As a result there was never a point in the film where I cared about what happened to any of them. They were stale, moving about the film aimlessly. The only time they were remotely interesting was towards the end and I won't spoil why.
Not only did they bore me, they infuriated me at the same time. The decision-making of main character Nic (Brenton Thwaites) was just maddening. How he repeatedly found himself in the same perilous situations blew my mind. At one point, I remember saying, "At this point, you deserve what happens." You know it's going to be a long film when the main character can't win you over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 4
While there are some points of intrigue, the film seems to bumble along for the most part with much ado about nothing. You recognize that there is a mystery unfolding, but the terrible character development didn't help to raise my level of caring. The two action sequences that are worthwhile don't redeem the film as a whole.
Genre: 4
I love sci-fi. There are too many films to count that have helped shape the genre. When it comes to sci-fi, this ranks towards the bottom of the barrel for me. There are no real points of connection that gave it the spark it needed to capture my interest. The true sci-fi elements come too little too late.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 5
Watching this film is like watching a baby trying to walk, but not quite as cute. You're waiting for the film to collapse at any moment due to its shaky foundation and then you get to a point where you say, "Just be done already." After about the fourth or fifth eyeroll, I was beyond ready for the film's conclusion.
Plot: 3
Just dumb. Do I need to expand on this? The story has enough holes to make swiss cheese jealous. Sure, things became less confusing as the story progressed, but the answers given were beyond far-fetched. I think a stronger story overall is what could have turned the tides of the entire film.
Resolution: 6
From a visuals standpoint, the ending was pretty cool. From a justifiable and satisfaction-level standpoint? Going to take a hard pass. I won't spoil the ending, but I'll just say the payoff is far from worth it. Interesting yes...but incomplete.
Overall: 56
Even before the ending brought the film to a necessary close, there were so many points along the way director William Eubank could have tweaked to improve this film. Alas, it didnt seem to be worth his time and neither should this film be for yours.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Witch Elm: A Novel in Books
Mar 18, 2019
Interesting but long and slow at times
Life has always been pretty easy for Toby--school, girls, job, etc. All that changes in an instant, however, after a night out with his two best friends. Upon arriving home, Toby surprises two burglars in his home. They beat him horribly, leaving him with terrible injuries that may impact his life forever. Unable to go back to work, Toby reluctantly heads to the Ivy House, his family home, where he spent many happy summers with his cousins. His Uncle Hugo is ill--with irreparable brain cancer--and Toby agrees to help care for him in his last few months. Then Toby's nephew discovers a skull in the backyard of Ivy House and everything changes again. Toby begins questioning everything he remembered about his happy childhood--and his own guilt and innocence.
This is the first "stand-alone" for Tana French, versus her group of loosely connected police procedural novels. For some reason, it wasn't quite what I was expecting, and I found myself sort of missing the detective side of things. As this is a typical Tana French novel, there are a lot of thoughts and feelings, with Toby explaining (a lot) about how he feels, how things affect him, etc. It's always something you just have to be prepared for and used to with her books. She's a wonderful writer, and the novel's setting unfolds so easily around you.
Of course, it also means that things can happen fairly slowly. The discovery of the skull, for instance, while heralded in the novel's description, doesn't happen until around 200 pages in. Those first 200 pages can be a bit slow. Things do pick up when they find the skull, but there is definitely a lot of character-driven angst that accompanied the mystery of what happened in the backyard of the Ivy House, and sometimes it was a bit much for me.
Toby has to grow on you, and the book is Toby central, with everything coming in from him and all his many ramblings. The other characters are a bit hard to like (with the exception, perhaps, of poor Hugo), which doesn't make things any easier. A lot of bickering unlikable relatives can only take you so far.
Still, I was intrigued as to what had gone down in the backyard to lead to a skull landing in a tree, and I cannot argue that French is just a lovely writer, who can weave a beautiful scene. This was an interesting novel and compelling at times, but it was a bit long, and it took me a over a week to finish, which is certainly longer than usual in my typical reading span. I never really felt excited to read it, though I often enjoyed it once I picked it up, if that makes any sense. I'll still be back to read whatever Tana French writes, of course.
This is the first "stand-alone" for Tana French, versus her group of loosely connected police procedural novels. For some reason, it wasn't quite what I was expecting, and I found myself sort of missing the detective side of things. As this is a typical Tana French novel, there are a lot of thoughts and feelings, with Toby explaining (a lot) about how he feels, how things affect him, etc. It's always something you just have to be prepared for and used to with her books. She's a wonderful writer, and the novel's setting unfolds so easily around you.
Of course, it also means that things can happen fairly slowly. The discovery of the skull, for instance, while heralded in the novel's description, doesn't happen until around 200 pages in. Those first 200 pages can be a bit slow. Things do pick up when they find the skull, but there is definitely a lot of character-driven angst that accompanied the mystery of what happened in the backyard of the Ivy House, and sometimes it was a bit much for me.
Toby has to grow on you, and the book is Toby central, with everything coming in from him and all his many ramblings. The other characters are a bit hard to like (with the exception, perhaps, of poor Hugo), which doesn't make things any easier. A lot of bickering unlikable relatives can only take you so far.
Still, I was intrigued as to what had gone down in the backyard to lead to a skull landing in a tree, and I cannot argue that French is just a lovely writer, who can weave a beautiful scene. This was an interesting novel and compelling at times, but it was a bit long, and it took me a over a week to finish, which is certainly longer than usual in my typical reading span. I never really felt excited to read it, though I often enjoyed it once I picked it up, if that makes any sense. I'll still be back to read whatever Tana French writes, of course.
Paul Kellett (118 KP) rated This War of Mine: The Board Game in Tabletop Games
May 27, 2019
Very immersive experience (4 more)
Great solo game
Stands out as a piece of art
Great teaching tool
Great storytelling game
Brutally hard (1 more)
Adult and disturbing depictions of war
Brutal Survival game
This War of Mine is a game of civilians struggling to survive in the middle of a war. It is harsh, brutal and contains scenes that some players might find distressing.
It is gritty, realistic and very hard. It's a remarkable game that really makes you think and can stand as a piece of art, capable of teaching about the harsh realities of war and humanity.
You play as a group of 3 (or 4) civilians trying to survive. You have to rebuild your shelter to try and barricade against the cold and other raiding groups.
A fully cooperative game, no player controls a single character but takes turns deciding what the group will do and resolving situations.
Split into phases, you spend the day building up your shelter, adding beds, workshops and other items that might ease your struggles.
You will try different combinations of things to try and work out the most efficient and vital components to build first. Depending on the whim of the various encounter and event cards as to how well these things will work.
The night phase is the main part of the game. You need to send people out to scavenge the nearby ruined buildings, post a guard to protect your shelter and try to get some rest. This is a fine balancing act and you will be forced to push the survivors to breaking point in order to do any of these things.
Scavenging brings danger from snipers, soldiers and other aggressive survivors trying to defend their property.
You pick one of 3 locations to investigate and build an encounter deck. As you explore, you reveal cards, find valuable resources, food, medicine, bandages, weapons and parts crucial to building better items in your shelter.
While scavenging, you will be told to reference numbered paragraphs in the Book of Scripts. This tells the story of what and who you find and it is this that brings home the grim reality of what you are doing.
You will have to make some terrible decisions - do you return home empty handed and risk one of your group dying from hunger or illness or do you steal the supplies you need from the old couple you found hiding in the ruined apartment?
This game is definitely not for everyone but I firmly believe that everyone should experience it at least once.
I borrowed a copy from someone in my game group and played a couple of short games before handing it back but I found myself thinking about it a lot afterwards and ended up buying it myself.
This War of Mine is definitely much more than just a boardgame. It is art. It is a lesson in humanity and the harsh reality of war.
It is gritty, realistic and very hard. It's a remarkable game that really makes you think and can stand as a piece of art, capable of teaching about the harsh realities of war and humanity.
You play as a group of 3 (or 4) civilians trying to survive. You have to rebuild your shelter to try and barricade against the cold and other raiding groups.
A fully cooperative game, no player controls a single character but takes turns deciding what the group will do and resolving situations.
Split into phases, you spend the day building up your shelter, adding beds, workshops and other items that might ease your struggles.
You will try different combinations of things to try and work out the most efficient and vital components to build first. Depending on the whim of the various encounter and event cards as to how well these things will work.
The night phase is the main part of the game. You need to send people out to scavenge the nearby ruined buildings, post a guard to protect your shelter and try to get some rest. This is a fine balancing act and you will be forced to push the survivors to breaking point in order to do any of these things.
Scavenging brings danger from snipers, soldiers and other aggressive survivors trying to defend their property.
You pick one of 3 locations to investigate and build an encounter deck. As you explore, you reveal cards, find valuable resources, food, medicine, bandages, weapons and parts crucial to building better items in your shelter.
While scavenging, you will be told to reference numbered paragraphs in the Book of Scripts. This tells the story of what and who you find and it is this that brings home the grim reality of what you are doing.
You will have to make some terrible decisions - do you return home empty handed and risk one of your group dying from hunger or illness or do you steal the supplies you need from the old couple you found hiding in the ruined apartment?
This game is definitely not for everyone but I firmly believe that everyone should experience it at least once.
I borrowed a copy from someone in my game group and played a couple of short games before handing it back but I found myself thinking about it a lot afterwards and ended up buying it myself.
This War of Mine is definitely much more than just a boardgame. It is art. It is a lesson in humanity and the harsh reality of war.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
As average as you can get
The lacklustre box-office performance of Jack Reacher in 2012 seemed to scupper plans for the film to become the first in a new Tom Cruise-led action franchise to rival the likes of Mission Impossible and its mixed critical response only added to its woes.
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/