Cutthroat Island, by John Gregory Betancourt

By Werner Lind June 5, 2026 June 1, 2026 Review

Literary rating: ★★½
Kick-butt quotient: ☆☆☆☆

Made in 1995, Cutthroat Island was a pirate-themed historical action-adventure movie starring Geena Davis and Matthew Modine. (Before starting my read of this novelization of it, I’d never seen the movie, though I’d long been curious about it; but about 3/4 of the way through the book, after learning that the film could be watched for free on Tubi, I made time to view it so that I could compare it with the book.) The filmmakers didn’t strive for great cinematic art; they didn’t intend to offer anything but undemanding escapist entertainment. But even considering that fact, the widespread negative reaction by both fans and critics, which endures to this day, is remarkable (the film made it into the Guiness Book of World Records — as the worst box office flop in movie history!). I was aware of that going in, but was resolved to make my own assessment. As is sometimes the case, I landed in the minority; I like the movie well enough for what it is

Unlike some people, I don’t view movie novelization as inherently a trashy and illegitimate abuse of the fictional art. To my mind, it can be a perfectly legitimate artistic enterprise, adapting a story told in one medium to the possibilities afforded by a different one, with the intention of producing a retelling that offers genuine rewards to readers. Because it’s an adaptation, I think the adaptor should strive for as much fidelity to the original as possible, just as in the converse situation of novel to film. The novel format, however, offers the possibility of providing more explanation and clarification of areas that may be murky in the film because of the latter’s time (and other) constraints. Unfortunately, I’d have to say that Betancourt didn’t do as well as he could have on either of these points (and this novel generally suffers as a result). Some of its literary flaws and improbabilities, though, are already inherent in the original movie itself.

The tale opens in 1688. In the movie, the opening scenes are on, or just off, the coast of Jamaica; in the book, they’re moved inexplicably to Tortuga, off the northern coast of Haiti, and we then move to Jamaica in one day (which I doubt is actually possible for a wind-driven sailing ship). But we soon learn some crucial backstory. In 1619, a pirate captain named “Fingers” Adams captured a Spanish treasure ship loaded with “the richest cargo ever to leave the Americas;” but his ship was subsequently wrecked on the uncharted titular Cutthroat Island, with Adams as the lone survivor. He secreted the treasure there; but after returning to civilization, instead of mounting a retrieval expedition, he contented himself with making a map to the treasure’s location. (Apparently, pirates didn’t steal their booty to do anything like selfishly spend it; they just liked to leave it for posterity.) He divided the map into three parts, bequeathing one piece each to his three in-wedlock sons, all pirate captains in their own right. A fourth son, pirate captain Douglas Brown, nicknamed Dog or Mad Dog (Betancourt always affects the spelling “Dawg,” though that wouldn’t be pronounced any differently) was left out because he was born out of wedlock.

Brown didn’t appreciate this slight, so when our story begins, he’s embarked on a campaign of tracking down and murdering his half-brothers to get their pieces of the map. (This isn’t a close family.) Why he waited until 1688 is never explained. By now, he’s got one piece, and he’s making captured Adams sibling Black Harry “walk the plank” while simultaneously demanding that he reveal the location of the second piece. (Okay, nobody ever said Brown was intelligent.) But Harry’s 20-something daughter Morgan (her exact age is never given), herself raised as a member of his pirate crew, comes to his rescue amid a slew of murky unexplained details and convenient improbabilities, though he’s mortally wounded in the process. Before he dies, he reveals that he had a copy of his part of the map tattooed to his scalp (where he couldn’t possibly refer to it; so no, intelligence doesn’t run in this clan). Morgan’s mission (whether she chooses to accept it or not) is to get herself elected captain in his stead, join up with her surviving uncle, and beat Brown to the treasure, while staying alive in the process. Oh, and find somebody literate in Latin, since that’s the language used on the map. Swashbuckling action-adventure ensues.

There are some significant historical errors here, one already in the movie script itself: in the 17th century, in English law (which applied in Jamaica the same as in England), the punishment for any theft worth more than 12 pence wasn’t being sold into slavery; it was a mandatory sentence to death by hanging. (And it has to be said that main male character William Shaw’s idea of crashing the governor of Jamaica’s ball uninvited, claiming to be a physician when he’s not, swiping jewels off of his dance partners while they’re distracted by his flattery, and transparently lying about what ship brought him to the colony, while having no exit strategy except trying to casually walk out of the building, puts him in the running for the title of most stupid character here, though the competition is fierce.)

And governors of Jamaica did not serve without pay; they were actually paid quite handsomely by 17th-century standards (though the expenses of their station were also steep, and they generally did resort to wangling extra fees and cuts, and sometimes outright corruption). Betancourt also introduces significantly more bad language, nudity and sexual innuendo into this version; the original movie doesn’t have much of any of these, and no real nudity. (It also doesn’t have any reference to Brown having sexually molested Morgan when she was a child, though that claim is made here.) He drops a character arc for one character that’s in the movie, but rather improbable; but he invents two others that are just as improbable compared to their previous behavior.

On the more positive side, the author does develop Morgan’s character better than the filmmakers do, and shows a bit more growth on her part, and more believable development of romantic feelings on the part of the two main characters, than what’s brought out in the movie. He also inserts a short dialogue between Shaw and teenage pirate Bowen (who’s said here to be an orphan taken in by Harry after his parents died) that offers some explanation for how the pirates view their lifestyle; when Shaw points out that Bowen’s a criminal, the latter replies, “We don’t see it that way, since the whole world is crooked, and we’re making the best of it we can.” Morgan’s an interesting, nuanced character, a strong and athletic woman who’s been raised in a rough, kill-or-be-killed milieu (her mother’s never mentioned, in either the movie or the book), who has no qualms about taking human life in combat or in rescuing endangered shipmates, and doesn’t consider reforming and adopting a different career as an attractive possibility. But she’s also capable of kindness and a protective stance, and has a well-developed sense of duty, courage, loyalty, and fairness. (Unlike Brown, she’s not a murderous psychopath; and when she’s pitted against him, she’s not hard to root for.) This read has a lot of action, and there’s never a dull moment.

In terms of content issues, as noted above, there’s more occasional bad language here (in the form of profanity, cuss words and vulgarisms, though not obscenity) than in the movie, but probably far less than we’d have been apt to hear on an actual pirate ship. Violence is pervasive, and Brown is a sadist, but for the most part, neither the movie nor the book make it more graphic than it has to be. (The book is the more graphic of the two, but that’s mostly just in one place, and stops short of being “pornography of violence.”) No sex acts take place in the book itself, though it’s clear that one took place just before it begins. In order to rescue Harry, Morgan’s rousted out of a bed she’s been sharing with a French naval officer who was planning to arrest her after using her; but she’s way ahead of him, and his subsequent discomfiture doesn’t earn him much pity. (She also later poses briefly as a prostitute.) We can infer that she’s honestly been raised with no conception that sex is anything but casual recreation, and she acts accordingly; though there’s an indication at the end of the tale that she might be on the cusp of discovering what it’s actually intended for.)

I actually did like this yarn (though the enjoyment might be characterized as something of a guilty pleasure). It can be recommended to readers who like action-oriented historical adventure, especially with a pirate mystique, and who aren’t put off by the very real flaws noted above.

Author: John Gregory Betancourt
Publisher: Tor Forge; used copy available through Amazon, but only as a printed book. It is available to borrow through the Internet Archive.
A version of this review previously appeared on Goodreads.

The Partisan

By Jim McLennan June 3, 2026 June 3, 2026 Review

★★★
“Part-ially effective.”

We have written about some of the women who worked behind enemy lines for British intelligence during World War II. Names like Noor Inayat Khan, Virginia Hall and Vera Atkins deserve to be better known that they are. The attempts to tell their stories so far have been laudable attempts, but have left me feeling underwhelmed, with a sense they haven’t done their subjects full justice. This is another which I feel should be filed in the same box. The subject here is Christine Granville (Polanski), born Krystyna Skarbek, a Polish national who originally worked in her native country, organizing a network of spies and couriers, running information to then neutral Budapest. This included early reports foreshadowing Germany’s attack on Russia.

As with so much in the film here, however, the details are left frustratingly vague. The above paragraph tells you more of her time in Poland than the movie, which mentions a microfilm, but seems more concerned with Granville’s efforts to extract her mother out of Warsaw. It does, however, include an incident where she was being questioned by the Nazis, bit her tongue, allowing her to feign coughing up blood and convince the doctor she had TB, leading to her release. Most of the movie, however, is set during her time in southern France, later in the war. There, she worked with the maquis, the local resistance, in preparation for the looming Allied invasion.

The best thing this has going for it is Polanski – yes, she is the daughter of director Roman Polanski, though has more of the luminous looks of her mother, actress Emmanuelle Seigner. Granville had a reputation as a hothead: Atkins called her “very brave, very attractive, but a loner and a law unto herself,” and Polanski’s performance puts all those aspects across very well. There are occasionally scenes which do capture the relentless tension of operating in a scenario like this too, where a single slip could mean death. For example, she tells a Gestapo officer she’s a teacher seeking employment – only for him to show up at the local school, forcing her to improvise during a conversation with the headmistress. More of this would have been welcome.

Instead, for whatever reason, the makers have opted to make their film at least somewhat non-linear, to no readily apparent purpose. There are points where it becomes impossible to tell when or where you are. A straightforward adaptation of her life would have been perfectly fine, including the several occasions on which she was treated badly by her employers. According to Xan Fielding, an operative she had saved from execution, “a few weeks after the armistice she was dismissed with a month’s salary and left in Cairo to fend for herself.” Even more tragically, she was murdered in 1952 by a lover she had rejected. Again, little of this is mentioned here, beyond being whizzed past in a final caption. Once more, this is a heroine who deserves a great biopic, rather than one merely good enough.

Dir: James Marquand
Star: Morgane Polanski, Ingvar Sigurdsson, Frederick Schmidt, Piotr Adamczyk

They Will Kill You

By Jim McLennan June 1, 2026 June 1, 2026 Review

★★★
“Ready or Not 3.”

There’s no denying that this is considerably weakened by coming in the wake of Ready or Not 2. There’s just too much similarity for it to be otherwise. A woman having to fight her way through a bunch of Satanists, in order to save her kid sister? Yeah, there’s a strong sense of deja vu, in its most literal meaning. Yet it would be unfair to write this off as some kind of mockbuster. While the “elevator pitch” may be similar, the details and the approach taken are different. This skews considerably more towards the horror elements. Many reviews cite Sam Raimi and Quentin Tarantino as influences, and that’s not wrong. To the point I might have used fewer homages, to be honest.

The heroine is Asia Reaves (Beetz), who is jailed after trying to protect her sister, Maria (Myha’la) from their abusive father. Ten years later, she gets out of prison, and seeks to be reunited with Maria. The trail leads to The Virgil, a massive apartment building. Asia gets a job there as a maid, using an assumed identity, under the oversight of building supervisor Lilith Woodhouse (Arquette). It turns out, the building is home to a cult of Satan worshippers, who trade human sacrifices for immortality. But after a decade in the penal system, Asia has the skills to defend herself, and won’t let anyone – or anything – get in the way of her mission to rescue her sister.

Save Kill Bill, I’m not a huge fan of Tarantino. It appears Sokolov is, going by the number of jarring needle-drops and, to be honest, shots of women’s feet. There are points where the style seems to be more important than the substance. However, there are some excellent sequences as well. The use by Asia of a fiery axe is top-tier carnage, and the near-unlimited ability of her opponents to take damage leads to some spectacular gore. They may be immortal: they still spray blood like enthusiastic geysers. When one has her head reduced to the consistency of porridge, one eyeball continues to operate on its own, independent basis.

I do think the immortality thing is a double-edged sword. It robs the fights of much impact, because decapitation is barely an inconvenience. Naturally, there is a solution, and I figured it out, more or less, as soon as it was mentioned. Beetz makes a fierce and unstoppable heroine, no mistake about it. You will also see things you have not witnessed before, especially during a thoroughly unhinged ending. It consequently makes Ready or Not 2 seem positively down to earth and realistic, so the stabs – word chosen advisedly – at social commentary consequently feel misplaced, even more than usual. I note Sokolov’s previous (non-GWG) film was called Why Don’t You Just Die! I’ve a feeling there may be a theme running through his work. Suspect I will still end up checking it out, hoping for the pure and undiluted carnage I didn’t quite get here.

Dir: Kirill Sokolov
Star: Zazie Beetz, Patricia Arquette, Myha’la, Tom Felton

Ready or Not 2 vs. They Will Kill You: Who’s the baddest?

By Jim McLennan June 1, 2026 May 22, 2026 Feature

It has been a long while since we have had two such similar action heroine films come out in theatres, so close to each other. The last time I can remember was back in 2006, when vampire GWG movies Underworld: Evolution and Ultraviolet came out just a few weeks apart. But the gap here was less still. Ready or Not 2: Here I Come was released on March 20th, and just one week later, They Will Kill You arrived. Both films also had a number of remarkably common elements. Hollywood has done this before, of course – even discounting the obvious “mockbusters” put out by the likes of The Asylum. “Twin films” have been around for over a century: two versions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde came out in 1920. Since then? Armageddon vs. Deep Impact. Dante’s Peak vs. Volcano. Olympus has Fallen vs. White House Down.

It’s hard to ascertain who came first here. Obviously, the original Ready or Not was the groundbreaker, back in 2019. The sequel was first announced in October 2024, several months after word of They Will Kill You came out in June. But the sequel, involving the heroine’s sister, was not intended as one. Per Wikipedia, “Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett were developing an original movie with a sister story for Kathryn Newton and Samara Weaving to star in. When Searchlight Pictures asked Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett to direct the sequel to Ready or Not, they offered to adapt their original sister story into the Ready or Not universe.” So their idea likely pre-dates the formal announcement in October. I do note that Ready or Not 2 brought its release date forward, apparently to beat its rival to screens.

Unfortunately, and in contrast to the examples above, the market didn’t find room for both, or even pick one to favour. Both films failed to find the hoped-for audience. They Will Kill You failed to cover its budget, taking in $19 million worldwide, while costing $20 million. Ready or Not 2 – perhaps using its advantage of previous name recognition – did better, with a $42 million gross, around three times its production budget. So, after other costs like promotion, it likely made a small profit. However, this was still more than $15 million below the take of the first movie, despite costing over twice as much. Prospects for any further entries in the Ready or Not Cinematic Universe are distinctly uncertain, at best.

But let’s take a look at each film in turn, and see how they stand up – both on their own, and against each other.

Ready or Not 2: Here I Come

★★★★
“Let the games begi… uh, continue!”

Despite a slightly clunky title, I enjoyed this a little more than the original. It helps that there’s no need for build-up or explanations. We join things immediately after the end of part one, with Grace MacCaullay (Weaving) staggering outside the mansion where she battled and beat the Le Domas family. Understandably, she ends up in hospital and handcuffs, where her sister Faith (Newton) shows up. But it turns out the Le Domas family were just one part – albeit the head – of a larger, Satanic organization, the Council. The remaining families now need to determine a successor. Whoever kills Grace gets to take over, so the siblings are quickly abducted and taken to the Council’s country club complex.

Grace refuses to take part, but using Faith as leverage, they compel her participation. The siblings must battle for survival and, again, try to survive to dawn against a litany of more or less competent adversaries. This was one my main criticisms about part one: the Le Domas members were so inept as to be no threat. While, in some ways, this is true again here, the film does at least lean into the humourous possibilities. The peak is likely reached when Grace has to face off against Francesca, her late husband’s ex. There’s some rocket launcher incompetence, followed by some pepper sprayage, which leaves the two adversaries thrashing about like blind squid, while an 80’s classic tune plays. It’s awesome.

There is a bit of a lull thereafter, because Faith is again used against her sister. This compels Grace, once more, to don bridal attire, as a means of avoiding further bloodshed. Well, “postponing” might be closer to the truth. The ceremony goes off about as well as a typical wedding held by a professional wrestling federation – though with considerably more blood than even the most hardcore fed. It’s all a lot of fun, with the Council families providing a slew of fun characters, in addition to its lawyer (Wood). It provides an interesting contrast in family dynamics between the MacCaullays and the Danforths, represented by Ursula (Sarah-Michelle Gellar – and, yes, there are some potential Buffy references) and her psycho brother, Titus (Hatosy).

I liked the fact that it kept any actual social commentary very much secondary. What makes the Council evil is not particularly race, class or money. It is that they are freakin’ Satanists. The film’s other main strength is Weaving, who cements her position as perhaps the best of the next generation for action heroines. She runs through the whole gamut of emotions here, and it is extremely easy to root for Grace. But let’s be honest, the actress would be forgiven if she had simply worn a “not this shit again” expression for one hundred and ten minutes. While the poor box-office here means it’s unlikely we’ll see a part three, long may Weaving’s shotgun continue to smoke.

Dir: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett
Star: Samara Weaving, Kathryn Newton, Shawn Hatosy, Elijah Wood

They Will Kill You

★★★
“Ready or Not 3.”

Dir: Kirill Sokolov
Star: Zazie Beetz, Patricia Arquette, Myha’la, Tom Felton

As the above suggests, my personal preference was for Ready or Not 2 over They Will Kill You. Checking the scores online, here’s where the two movies stand in various metrics at the time of writing.

IMDb rating (/10): RoN2: 6.5 – TWKY 6.3
Letterboxd score (/5): RoN2: 3.3 – TWKY 3.0
Rotten Tomatoes critics/audience (%): RoN2: 74/89 – TWKY 64/77
MetaCritic (%): RoN2: 58 – TWKY 50

Which seems to confirm I’m in line with general opinion, all four sites showing a preference, to varying degrees, for Ready or Not 2. But let’s perhaps break it down a little further, and see which movie comes out ahead.

Lead actress. Samara Weaving vs. Zazie Beets. Yeah, regular readers will know my previously expressed affection for Weaving, so this category might be seen as confirmation bias. However, I think this illustrates exactly why she is among my favorite of the current generation of action actresses. In contrast, Beetz doesn’t yet have as much experience in the genre, and previously had been mostly limited to supporting roles i.e. Deadpool 2 and Bullet Train. She’s not bad here, but if you come for the queen, you’d better not miss. Advantage: Ready or Not 2.

Supporting cast. Both films are strong here. Of course, RoN2 brings us Buffy herself, but you also get Elijah Wood and, a very pleasant surprise, a small role for horror icon David Cronenberg. However, I wasn’t so impressed with Kathryn Newton, who made little impact. TWKY does well here too, with a particularly strong performance from Patricia Arquette, and good support from Heather Thomas. Advantage: Ready or Not 2, although it is very close.

Insanity. This is really why we are here. Both films promise an excess of over-the-top carnage. In RoN2, you get a lot of people exploding, when they break the rules by which the Council operate. That is about it, and while the finale certainly delivers in bulk, it is somewhat lacking in variety. On the other hand, there’s a point at TWKY suddenly decides to push the pedal to the metal, and it rarely lets up thereafter. The flaming axe battle may be my second favorite fire-related fight sequence of 2026. Advantage: They Will Kill You.

Messaging. You pay your money and you take your choice. Do you want the villains to be rich people, who happen to be Satanists? Then RoN2 is for you. Prefer the bad guys to be rich people who happen to be Satanists? Choose TWKY. It’s a small and subtle, but significant, difference in approach. TWKY is a bit more up front with its morality, though you’d have to be severely “anti-woke” to feel it got in the way of the bloody entertainment value. Advantage: a tie, largely because I don’t give a damn about the message in either.

I am sad that neither apparently found the hoped-for audience. Right now, we’re looking at another year where no action heroine film has reached $25 million at the North American box-office. While I’m sure Supergirl will cruise past that, can it provide a flashback to the days when comic-book films were a license to print money? We’ll find out later this month. With Fall 2 the only other GWG film I see scheduled for a wide release between now and the end of the year, there’s a lot riding for our genre on the shoulders of the Girl of Steel.