Deep under the Pentagon lies a top secret training facility. The two best agents: Sniper and Rook. Their mission: do the dirty work required in this day and age to protect the country. But within this comic is a secret I must reveal to you before we go any further…
This is the most BORING book I have ever read.
Predictable plot, uninspired characters and plot holes the size of Nebraska. For example, Rook is a female computer specialist and ex-Olympic gymnast, we all know that happens everyday. Sniper is the all American boy turned cop who was booted off the force for disobeying a superiors questionable order. Original.
Now what is this hotshot Mulder/Scully wannabe teams first mission? Saving the President from Soviet Russian terrorists. Let me repeat that. Saving the President from Soviet Russian terrorists. Where’s Bruce Willis when you need him!?
Do they explain how the Russians got to him? No. Do they explain the conveniently placed sewer passage that leads our duo directly to the oval office? No. Does this pair need any backup what-so-ever? Of course not! Who needs strategically placed back-up when you have a ex-gymnast in a belly shirt and a ex-cop in tight jeans. Although secret service men do show up but only after Sniper & Rook have shot all the terrorists. Why have survivors to interrogate when you can have a high body count! YAY!
If the writer wanted to liven up this comic by trying to be hardcore he failed. You need more to a tough guy than matching leather jackets and, I’ll admit it, well drawn fight scenes.
You need a plot that won’t make the reader fall asleep! I’ve drooled over comics before but never from drowsiness. But if you are a fan of bad action movies you might like it. Jean-Claude Van Dam bad, not Naked Gun bad.
Check it out for yourself www.beta3comics.com
It’s always great to have feedback about one of my titles! Thanks so much for adding your unique take on the first issue of my book, published twelve years ago. Here’s a link to another, less scathing, review:
As a fellow writer, let me assist you by pointing out a few things to help you for future pieces.
You might want to review the proper use for an apostrophe. Your title should be Metych’s, not Metychs’.
I’m intrigued why you might think that all things should be explained in a single issue, rather than over the course of a story arc. I’d be pleased to hear what you think about the next four issues in that arc. As you know the website, they are easily available for you to purchase!
Also, I’m confused by your statement of “You need more to a tough guy than matching leather jackets” because that part of the sentence alone has several internal conflicts.
Finally, and I apologize for drooling on your review out of drowsiness (not drowziness as you mistyped above) due to the laziness of your writing, but it’s “Van Damme” not “Van Dam”.
Katherine, It’s hard to take a review (and therefore reviewer) seriously when a published piece (even on the internet) is not checked for proper grammar and spelling. If you’re going to take others to task, you should be sure that your own work is polished.
All the best,
Aww, someone got their feelings hurt, being so weak against criticism that you go to grammar for an attack. I like you chose the one decent review out of the dozen or so negative ones. Which I must say is impressive, at least 12 people read this trash, bravo. Sorry man, the very bad 90’s idea wasn’t any good, feel proud that she pointed out the fact that you made some impressive fight scenes. Focus on this, then prove her wrong by making a better comic, maybe one with a tile that doesn’t sound like a 70’s police drama.
John- I do apologize about my poor grammar, this was one of my first reviews as I agree was ill written. That said, my jumbled writting does not make yours better by comparison. I DID read three issues of your comic. I give all comics a three issue chance to entice me. Your comic failed to. And rather than post three differnet reviews stating how badly unoriginal the plot was over and over again, I decided to take th high road and post only one. Sorry again for my lack or skills. I will be more thorough next time I review a comic of yours. Good luck with your career.
Responding to someone with the name “Troll” isn’t usually a good idea . . . sigh.
No feelings were hurt on this end. I’m all about critiques and constructive criticism. Pointing out errors in grammar and/or spelling should not be considered an “attack” by any stretch of the imagination. I’d label it “editorial review” and “professional courtesy.”
If you found a dozen or so negative reviews, I’d love to read them. Constructive reviews only help writers (and artists, and comic reviewers, etc.) get better in time. Todd McFarlane received a STACK of rejection letters before hitting it big, so there’s something to be said for taking constructive feedback and being persistent.
How many issues of the book have you read? It was nice to hear that Katherine had read three.
One of your first reviews was on my very first comic. It seems that we have something in common! Our fates are now united, and all that stuff. 🙂
I’m glad that you gave the series three issues to grow on you. Unfortunately, it didn’t. Fortunately, there’s enough variety in the comic world so there’s something for everybody out there!
Good luck with your career as well!
Wow! You compared yourself to Todd McFarlane, I wasn’t being that mean, take it easy on yourself.