Marked Men

Super disappointed in the movies. I read the whole book series years ago and loved it so I was excited to see it was a movie. Should have read the reviews first. There are so many missed details from the book that make the story what it is. The characters of Rule and Shaw should have been matched to a T. They are nothing like the actual characters, physically or personality wise, like them in the book. Details about their lives were not correct. Events that didn't happen in the books were added into the movie. The whole storyline was just wrong. Passionflix needs to do a redo of this ASAP!!!!!

I know people always say it, but the book was definitely better. This is the story of Rule, who lost his twin brother in a car accident three years prior. He is a tattoo artist at a tattoo shop named Marked. Every Sunday Shaw shows up and takes him to dinner at his parents' house...no matter what state Rule is in (I.e. Hungover, etc).

Shaw was Rule's twin's best friend, but what Rule doesn't know is that she has secretly been in love with rule since she first saw him at fourteen years old. Shaw and Rule couldn't be more opposite. Shaw is a pleaser and Rule is unapologetically himself, but that is what Shaw likes about him.

On her birthday, Shaw gets drunk...which is unusual for her and Rule volunteers to take her home. There Shaw makes the most of her opportunity and throws herself at Rule, who eventually succumbs to her charms. Of course Rule is the king of one night stands, so the next morning to prevent an awkward situation, Shaw sneaks out only to be seen by Rule's roommate and his older brother.

Rule eventually apologizes to Shaw for not calling and wants to try a no labels relationship with her. Meanwhile, Shaw has an ex boyfriend who is having trouble with the word no and the two seem on a collision course. Of course Shaw's parents think her ex is more suitable than Rule.

One of the major differences between the book and the film lies in the tagging and just general behavior of Rule and his group of friends. In the book they come across as more mature and in the film they are depicted more as street punks who are immature and tagging with spray paint in their spare time. I didn't care for the younger depiction. I also felt like the ex was a full on stalker who ends up attacking Shaw in a very violent way in the book, whereas in the film it seems he almost accidentally hit her and then apologized immediately. In the book he was oblivious to his violence and trying to rape her as he is speaking about them getting married, almost in a mentally ill way. Oh! And the tattoos that Rule eventually gives Shaw are completely different in the film. I think if they were going to depict the snowflake tattoo, they should have put it in the right location at the very least...but I also wish they explained the meaning in the film, like in the book...and showed the addition to Rule's tattoos.

So, book better but I do think that they captured the sentiment of the story in the film and as such I do think romantics will enjoy it, especially YA romantics.

I suppose it's my own fault but when I saw this I thought it might be a gangster thriller. Nope, it's about the on-off relationship between tattoo artist "Rule" (Chase Stokes) and his friend "Shaw" (Sydney Taylor). She used to date his brother "Remy" but we quickly learn that he was involved in a car accident with his brother and so now we have our requisite dose of family baggage to explain why "Rule" is a bit of a commitment-phobe. Meantime, she is supposed to be dating millionaire drip "Gabe" (Michael Bradway) to keep her rather wealthy but venal mother sweet, but in the end it's her bit of rough that she really craves. Can they sort things out and get past his fear of being called her boyfriend? There's the odd bit of sensitively photographed sex and it does pay slight homage to the artistry of some creative tattooists but for the most part it's a weakly constructed romantic will they/won't they drama that didn't really engage me at all. There is plenty of eye-candy on offer, including from the sparingly used, wooden as a picket fence, Alexander Ludwig as his elder brother "Rome" and Ella Balinska tries to inject a little bit of life into things as her best pal "Ayden" but neither Stokes nor Taylor do anything like enough with the, admittedly pedestrian, script or the story to bring this to life. Quite how it got a general release in the UK is, as Yul Brynner might have said, "a puzzlement ". It looks good and there are a few power ballads to help it along, but it's really just a mediocre television movie, sorry.

I probably really would've like this movie when I was 14. The story is straight out of the Wattpad 2013 handbook: the names, the angst, the manufactured dark backstory for the MMC, the cliche bff that does nothing other than live for the FMC to return home, and the characters that sound like they just learned how to cuss. I really wanted to like the movie if only to honor younger me, but older me was disappointed. For a 1.5 hour movie, it was watchable and I only picked up my phone a couple times. The movie writers could've used the books as a jumping off point and written the script with more substance. Perhaps my biggest gripe with the movie is its lack of using Alexander Ludwig to his fullest potential.

I found this to be an unenjoyable, unconvincing film. The energy was mediocre, the sexual tension and romantic chemistry lackluster, if not completely absent. Not worth the misuse of time.

I found it surprisingly boring and lacking any depth or nuance. Which, for me, was especially disappointing because Alexander Ludwig (Rome Archer) and Chase Stokes (Rule Archer) are quite talented. If I had to identify one character that was the convincing or engaging I have to give that nod to Ella Balinska (Ayden Cross). Ella's portrayal in the best friend role was grounded and felt realistic in contrast to the surface-level acting and absenteeism of any real chemistry.