Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Aug 12, 2020 (Updated Aug 12, 2020)
Packs a Surprising Impact
Based on the bestselling video game, super cool Sonic (Ben Schwartz) has to outsmart the evil Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey) who wants him captured. Sonic the Hedgehog was pulled originally to revamp the look of the character. That fact alone had me worried about the viability of the movie. After watching, I have to be honest: I didn’t hate it. Dare I say, I actually kinda liked it.
Acting: 10
Sure Ben Schwartz was pretty solid as Sonic, but this movie would be nothing without the hilarious performance of Jim Carrey. Carrey has always been hit or miss for me, but he hits a homerun in Sonic. His timing is perfect as he is constantly doing things to keep you laughing. The “Left Yourself Open” scene is a constant rewinder in my household. He gives the movie a much needed shine.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Despite the exorbitant amount of time spent on fixing Sonic’s character there is still a bit to be desired in the visuals department. Some of the slow-mo scenes feel stolen from the Quicksilver scenes in the X-Men Franchise. Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few cool moments, but I can’t help but feel like I’ve seen some of it before.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 5
What Pixar manages to do extremely well in moments is make you feel like you’re not watching a movie for kids. For me, that was the primary reason I couldn’t allow myself to fully get into Sonic the Hedgehog. It oozes with cheesiness in spots which takes away from some of the overall appeal. It would be one thing if it embraced the ridiculousness of these moments, but the movie actually expects you take some of these moments seriously.
Memorability: 7
On a positive note, there are quite a few hilarious moments and some of the action scenes are really cool to watch unfold. it definitely leaves an impact even if it’s not a lasting one. I’ve seen worse kids movies and I’ve for sure seen worse video game adaptations.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
Sonic the Hedgehog is a solid movie to watch when you’re with your kids and you’ve expended your options. It’s not going to win any awards, but it packs heart. Sometimes that’s enough to carry a movie. In the case of Sonic, at the very least it makes it a fun ride.
Acting: 10
Sure Ben Schwartz was pretty solid as Sonic, but this movie would be nothing without the hilarious performance of Jim Carrey. Carrey has always been hit or miss for me, but he hits a homerun in Sonic. His timing is perfect as he is constantly doing things to keep you laughing. The “Left Yourself Open” scene is a constant rewinder in my household. He gives the movie a much needed shine.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Despite the exorbitant amount of time spent on fixing Sonic’s character there is still a bit to be desired in the visuals department. Some of the slow-mo scenes feel stolen from the Quicksilver scenes in the X-Men Franchise. Don’t get me wrong, there are quite a few cool moments, but I can’t help but feel like I’ve seen some of it before.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 5
What Pixar manages to do extremely well in moments is make you feel like you’re not watching a movie for kids. For me, that was the primary reason I couldn’t allow myself to fully get into Sonic the Hedgehog. It oozes with cheesiness in spots which takes away from some of the overall appeal. It would be one thing if it embraced the ridiculousness of these moments, but the movie actually expects you take some of these moments seriously.
Memorability: 7
On a positive note, there are quite a few hilarious moments and some of the action scenes are really cool to watch unfold. it definitely leaves an impact even if it’s not a lasting one. I’ve seen worse kids movies and I’ve for sure seen worse video game adaptations.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 76
Sonic the Hedgehog is a solid movie to watch when you’re with your kids and you’ve expended your options. It’s not going to win any awards, but it packs heart. Sometimes that’s enough to carry a movie. In the case of Sonic, at the very least it makes it a fun ride.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Being There (1979) in Movies
Mar 26, 2018
Decent
A gardener with no professional skills has to strike out on his own when the owner of his estate dies.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
Being There gets off to an extremely slow start and I think it has more to do with expectations than anything. I don't know what exactly I was looking for, but it seemed as if the film started out laying the groundwork for what was to come, but it was trying to feel its way into the story. If your film is going to be over two hours long, it should be because there is a lot of meat in the film, not because its got a slow start latched on to it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
For the life of me, I can't remember not one memorable shot in this film. Not a single solitary one. Believe me, I sat on this for quite a few minutes trying to remember something, anything that stood out for me. Nothing. For main character Chance (Peter Sellers) to have been a gardener, we never got to see him working his craft in one of the rich, extravagant gardens. Nothing doing.
Conflict: 4
There's not a lot of friction in the conflict, but it is fun to watch as things unfold. You know it's only a matter of time before someone uncovers the truth of what's going on with Chance, but every scene that passes where he comes out unscathed is absolutely confounding. There are never any real stakes, however, hence the lower score.
Genre: 8
When it comes to dramas, I consider Being There, highly original. It feels like Forrest Gump mixed in with a ton of political satire. It stares the norm in the face and completely breaks the mold.
Memorability: 6
While the visuals were absolutely forgettable, the film did have some solid memorable moments that stood out. In one particular scene, Chance is having a dinner conversation with Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas) about the "room upstairs". Ben thinks they're talking about heaven when Chance is literally talking about the room upstairs.
Pace: 8
Once the film can get out of its own way in the beginning, it definitely managed to hold my attention with a solid pace. I was so entertained by Chance that things never really got slow again for me. His actions and presence alone kept me engaged.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Overall: 69
I was rooting for Being There to be better but there were just a handful of pitfalls that kept it well short of getting an all-time rating. With solid characters that were highly entertaining, I wish it would have gotten out of the gates stronger, among other things. For me, the film is a skippable one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
Being There gets off to an extremely slow start and I think it has more to do with expectations than anything. I don't know what exactly I was looking for, but it seemed as if the film started out laying the groundwork for what was to come, but it was trying to feel its way into the story. If your film is going to be over two hours long, it should be because there is a lot of meat in the film, not because its got a slow start latched on to it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
For the life of me, I can't remember not one memorable shot in this film. Not a single solitary one. Believe me, I sat on this for quite a few minutes trying to remember something, anything that stood out for me. Nothing. For main character Chance (Peter Sellers) to have been a gardener, we never got to see him working his craft in one of the rich, extravagant gardens. Nothing doing.
Conflict: 4
There's not a lot of friction in the conflict, but it is fun to watch as things unfold. You know it's only a matter of time before someone uncovers the truth of what's going on with Chance, but every scene that passes where he comes out unscathed is absolutely confounding. There are never any real stakes, however, hence the lower score.
Genre: 8
When it comes to dramas, I consider Being There, highly original. It feels like Forrest Gump mixed in with a ton of political satire. It stares the norm in the face and completely breaks the mold.
Memorability: 6
While the visuals were absolutely forgettable, the film did have some solid memorable moments that stood out. In one particular scene, Chance is having a dinner conversation with Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas) about the "room upstairs". Ben thinks they're talking about heaven when Chance is literally talking about the room upstairs.
Pace: 8
Once the film can get out of its own way in the beginning, it definitely managed to hold my attention with a solid pace. I was so entertained by Chance that things never really got slow again for me. His actions and presence alone kept me engaged.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Overall: 69
I was rooting for Being There to be better but there were just a handful of pitfalls that kept it well short of getting an all-time rating. With solid characters that were highly entertaining, I wish it would have gotten out of the gates stronger, among other things. For me, the film is a skippable one.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek in Books
Jan 21, 2020
Likable characters (1 more)
Great storyline
If your best friend was sent away to a reform school, what would you do? You'd either let them do their 'time,' or you would come up with a plan to help them escape, and with a pinch of the supernatural, this is what 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek' is all about.
When you read this novel by two of the most well-known YouTube personalities (Rhett and Link of Good Mythical Morning), be sure you have plenty of time to spare because this is a book you won't want to put down. The novel follows three best friends of a small town in North Carolina in the early 1990's, when one of them gets sent to a infamous reform school for an accident, they start to uncover mysterious deaths that have taken place there, and begin to fear that their friend is going to be a victim of one.
In 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek,' the main characters, Rex, Leif and Alicia, make their debut at a pig roasting to raise funds for a church, whose copper organ pipes had been stolen days before. It's here we learn that the three are making a film called PolterDog, which leads to Alicia getting sent away after a near-deadly accident with the owner and headmaster of the local Whitewood Reform School.
Soon after, Rex and Leif run into an escapee from the school (Ben), who tells them that their friend's life is in danger while she's at Whitewood. While the three come up with a plan to rescue Alicia, a woman who's visiting the town of Bleak Creek, who is trying to film a documentary about kidney stones, becomes a valuable part of their rescue mission.
Not only do we get to see from Rex and Leif's point of view, but we also get to see from inside the Whitewood Reform School from Alicia's view. This view point is much needed to help readers experience the abuse that goes on inside the school (and to realize that Ben was telling the truth) and also to help readers root for the main characters' success in their rescue mission. Even though the majority of the story is the main characters getting everything together for this mission, the writing was done so well that all of it makes sense leading up to the end.
To not give too much away about this book, I have to cut my review short of it. The writing is really good, with the pace continuously keeping the reader going and wanting more.This story also encompasses everything that makes a great novel: best friends trying to save another, small town mysteries, well-placed humor and murder. I found all of the characters likable, and the situations they found themselves in made complete sense in the story. This will be one that readers can pick up more than once and enjoy it each time they read it. As a horror book, this story is high on my scale with scenarios happening that I couldn't see coming.
When you read this novel by two of the most well-known YouTube personalities (Rhett and Link of Good Mythical Morning), be sure you have plenty of time to spare because this is a book you won't want to put down. The novel follows three best friends of a small town in North Carolina in the early 1990's, when one of them gets sent to a infamous reform school for an accident, they start to uncover mysterious deaths that have taken place there, and begin to fear that their friend is going to be a victim of one.
In 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek,' the main characters, Rex, Leif and Alicia, make their debut at a pig roasting to raise funds for a church, whose copper organ pipes had been stolen days before. It's here we learn that the three are making a film called PolterDog, which leads to Alicia getting sent away after a near-deadly accident with the owner and headmaster of the local Whitewood Reform School.
Soon after, Rex and Leif run into an escapee from the school (Ben), who tells them that their friend's life is in danger while she's at Whitewood. While the three come up with a plan to rescue Alicia, a woman who's visiting the town of Bleak Creek, who is trying to film a documentary about kidney stones, becomes a valuable part of their rescue mission.
Not only do we get to see from Rex and Leif's point of view, but we also get to see from inside the Whitewood Reform School from Alicia's view. This view point is much needed to help readers experience the abuse that goes on inside the school (and to realize that Ben was telling the truth) and also to help readers root for the main characters' success in their rescue mission. Even though the majority of the story is the main characters getting everything together for this mission, the writing was done so well that all of it makes sense leading up to the end.
To not give too much away about this book, I have to cut my review short of it. The writing is really good, with the pace continuously keeping the reader going and wanting more.This story also encompasses everything that makes a great novel: best friends trying to save another, small town mysteries, well-placed humor and murder. I found all of the characters likable, and the situations they found themselves in made complete sense in the story. This will be one that readers can pick up more than once and enjoy it each time they read it. As a horror book, this story is high on my scale with scenarios happening that I couldn't see coming.
Mirrorwriting by Jamie Woon
Album
As the stately pace of Mirrorwriting attests, Jamie Woon is not one to rush. And when the four years...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Very Good Time
It's 2045 and most of the world's population has turned to the virtual world called OASIS which has become a second home for many. When the world's creator James Halladay (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves behind an easter egg inside the virtual world and whoever finds that egg will inherit both his fortune and the OASIS. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) hopes to find that egg before Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) and his greedy corporation IOI can get their hands on it and forever ruin the OASIS.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Dogma (1999) in Movies
Jul 28, 2018
Funny and Deep
Talk about off the beaten path. Dogma is at weird as it comes. Offensive to some, hilarious to others, if you can take it for what it is and not get overly deep about it, you'll find yourself watching a quality comedy. The plot? A little complicated to explain without using more words than I would like. I will say that it involves two fallen angels who are looking for a way back into heaven.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
You want characters? This film has them by the boatload. Outside of the fallen angels, you will meet the likes of a woman who is the savior of humanity, a messenger from heaven, and an apostle holding a grudge just to name a few. Dogma is a melting pot of personalities and temperament which is a huge part of what makes the film such a good one. You are going to love Jay the Prophet. He is just plain hilarious. And Alan Rickman's dry sarcasm always makes for a good laugh.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There are never any real lulls where the film gets boring. There is a lot of dialogue but the progression of the conflict keeps the film moving at a solid speed. I did dock a couple of point for a brief dead spot about an hour in, but there is pretty solid action and comedy throughout for the most part.
Genre: 7
There is a special scene where the characters are discussing a John Hughes movie. The dialogue builds and, before you know it, you're cracking up at every word they're saying. It's scenes like these that contribute to making the film a pretty solid comedy. If the strip club scene doesn't make you laugh, I don't know what will!
Memorability: 10
The originality of the plot and the messaging help the film stand out in my mind among a sea of other movies I've seen. I appreciated the interesting introspection of faith and life. The Belief Vs. Ideas convo was another solid moment. Dogma is funny, but it gives you some things to digest as well.
Pace: 8
Plot: 5
While the plot is certainly intriguing, it was also a bit of a hindrance for me as it got confusing as all get out in certain spots. The struggle to find a short plot description above was real. Not sure what they could have done differently here, but there were certain spots where my experience was dampened by all the crazy stuff happening.
Resolution: 8
Overall: 82
With a solid cast (Ben Afleck and Matt Damon always work well together) and a number of memorable moments, Dogma is definitely worth a watch. Glad I can check this one off the list and add it to my favorites.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
You want characters? This film has them by the boatload. Outside of the fallen angels, you will meet the likes of a woman who is the savior of humanity, a messenger from heaven, and an apostle holding a grudge just to name a few. Dogma is a melting pot of personalities and temperament which is a huge part of what makes the film such a good one. You are going to love Jay the Prophet. He is just plain hilarious. And Alan Rickman's dry sarcasm always makes for a good laugh.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There are never any real lulls where the film gets boring. There is a lot of dialogue but the progression of the conflict keeps the film moving at a solid speed. I did dock a couple of point for a brief dead spot about an hour in, but there is pretty solid action and comedy throughout for the most part.
Genre: 7
There is a special scene where the characters are discussing a John Hughes movie. The dialogue builds and, before you know it, you're cracking up at every word they're saying. It's scenes like these that contribute to making the film a pretty solid comedy. If the strip club scene doesn't make you laugh, I don't know what will!
Memorability: 10
The originality of the plot and the messaging help the film stand out in my mind among a sea of other movies I've seen. I appreciated the interesting introspection of faith and life. The Belief Vs. Ideas convo was another solid moment. Dogma is funny, but it gives you some things to digest as well.
Pace: 8
Plot: 5
While the plot is certainly intriguing, it was also a bit of a hindrance for me as it got confusing as all get out in certain spots. The struggle to find a short plot description above was real. Not sure what they could have done differently here, but there were certain spots where my experience was dampened by all the crazy stuff happening.
Resolution: 8
Overall: 82
With a solid cast (Ben Afleck and Matt Damon always work well together) and a number of memorable moments, Dogma is definitely worth a watch. Glad I can check this one off the list and add it to my favorites.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Mar 11, 2019
Classic
Two brothers rob banks in west Texas to pay off overdue loans before their family home is foreclosed on.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
From the first scene in the beginning with Tanner (Ben Foster) and Toby (Chris Pine), I knew I was going to like the two brothers. One’s a loose cannon while the other is more level-headed and calculated. They argue like typical brothers because they are so different and their interactions remind you of typical sibling hate/love. As a viewer, their personalities worked so well for me because you realize both were needed throughout the movie. Sometimes you needed cool, other times crazy was definitely needed to get the two out of a rough scrape.
I also enjoyed Jeff Bridges character playing the role of Sheriff Marcus, the area’s dedicated peacemaker. He speaks with a quick drawl straight out of an Eastwood western. He is overly truthful to a hilarious extent. He is on his way to retirement and feels like catching Tanner and Toby could be his last bit of peace.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
While there truly are some impactful intense moments that help drive the narrative, Hell Or High Water is more drama than it is an action film. You do get a fair share of bank robberies, car chases, and shootouts. It just would have been nice if they had showed a bit more of that. Some of the parts that dragged on a bit would have served well with a bit more conflict.
Genre: 8
A powerful story about family helping family. Time will tell, but I think it’s a story that will keep its power years from now. The storytelling and direction is just as strong as any of my all-time favorites. Hell Or High Water packs a potent punch.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
The bank robbery genre has been done and redone, but not quite like this. From its setting to the backdrop of the plot, this movie paves its own way within a crowded and successful genre. It succeeds with memorable dialogue and making every single scene count towards a definitive end.
Resolution: 10
The final scene features a conversation between Marcus and Toby. It’s hands-down the most memorable scene in the entire film as you get to see how this chain of events has ultimately affected both characters. They have both gained and lost and both face ghosts that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. It’s a scene that stuck with me long after I watched it.
Overall: 92
Set against a sprawling, yet compacted west Texas, Hell Or High Water gives you everything you look for in a movie. Memorable scenes abound keeping the movie entertaining and fresh. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s a classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
From the first scene in the beginning with Tanner (Ben Foster) and Toby (Chris Pine), I knew I was going to like the two brothers. One’s a loose cannon while the other is more level-headed and calculated. They argue like typical brothers because they are so different and their interactions remind you of typical sibling hate/love. As a viewer, their personalities worked so well for me because you realize both were needed throughout the movie. Sometimes you needed cool, other times crazy was definitely needed to get the two out of a rough scrape.
I also enjoyed Jeff Bridges character playing the role of Sheriff Marcus, the area’s dedicated peacemaker. He speaks with a quick drawl straight out of an Eastwood western. He is overly truthful to a hilarious extent. He is on his way to retirement and feels like catching Tanner and Toby could be his last bit of peace.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
While there truly are some impactful intense moments that help drive the narrative, Hell Or High Water is more drama than it is an action film. You do get a fair share of bank robberies, car chases, and shootouts. It just would have been nice if they had showed a bit more of that. Some of the parts that dragged on a bit would have served well with a bit more conflict.
Genre: 8
A powerful story about family helping family. Time will tell, but I think it’s a story that will keep its power years from now. The storytelling and direction is just as strong as any of my all-time favorites. Hell Or High Water packs a potent punch.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
The bank robbery genre has been done and redone, but not quite like this. From its setting to the backdrop of the plot, this movie paves its own way within a crowded and successful genre. It succeeds with memorable dialogue and making every single scene count towards a definitive end.
Resolution: 10
The final scene features a conversation between Marcus and Toby. It’s hands-down the most memorable scene in the entire film as you get to see how this chain of events has ultimately affected both characters. They have both gained and lost and both face ghosts that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. It’s a scene that stuck with me long after I watched it.
Overall: 92
Set against a sprawling, yet compacted west Texas, Hell Or High Water gives you everything you look for in a movie. Memorable scenes abound keeping the movie entertaining and fresh. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s a classic.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Dreamers in Books
Apr 4, 2019 (Updated Apr 8, 2019)
Beautiful, fascinating read
In Santa Lora, California, it all begins at the college. It precisely originates with Kara, who climbs into her bed and never wakes up. Her roommate, Mei, finds her, panicking when nothing rouses the girl. Then another girl falls asleep. And another. And then more. Soon classes are canceled. The kids on the floor are quarantined. And before you know it, things escalate from there. A mapping of brain activity shows that the sleepers are dreaming--dreaming extraordinarily active dreams in fact. But what are they dreaming of? And can anything stop "the sickness" from spreading?
"Whatever this is, it comes over them quietly; a sudden drowsiness, a closing of the eyes. Most of the victims are found in their beds."
I found this book to be utterly fascinating and such a wonderful change of pace. It was almost like reading a horror film at some points (and I'm not the type who likes scary movies). It was compulsively readable--I read it in five settings, completely drawn into the creepy, amazing, and sometimes horrifying story.
The book is told from the point of view of a variety of characters--all in short snippets--and through an often impassive narration style. Still, you grow to care for the few characters you do get to know: Mei and some of the other college students; kids Libby and Sara and their apocalyptic-fearing father; professors Ben and Annie and their new baby, Grace; a biology professor, Nathaniel, and his partner, Henry; and Dr. Catherine Cohen, a psychiatrist called in after the sickness starts.
There's really no way to describe this book, and I do not want to reveal too much about the plot. It's beautifully written, which is amazing, considering it's mostly a book about a near plague spreading through a town. The characters, even though their chapters are often short and sparse, are fully-formed. It's easy to get attached to them and pulled into their lives, which are so quickly altered by the sickness. And it's amazing how quickly the sickness changes life in Santa Lora: how a town can nearly become a war-zone due to illness. It was really intriguing to read about, especially when the narration style is so mesmerizing and presents such a creepy helplessness (I wish I could describe it better).
Overall, I really, really enjoyed this book. The subject matter was not what I usually read, but it was a fascinating, captivating read. I was drawn to the characters and the narration style. The book presented such an interesting scenario to think about too--what would happen if this occurred in real-life society? Walker's writing is beautiful, and I've already tracked down her novel, The Age of Miracles, on Paperbackswap.com, and look forward to reading it soon.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"Whatever this is, it comes over them quietly; a sudden drowsiness, a closing of the eyes. Most of the victims are found in their beds."
I found this book to be utterly fascinating and such a wonderful change of pace. It was almost like reading a horror film at some points (and I'm not the type who likes scary movies). It was compulsively readable--I read it in five settings, completely drawn into the creepy, amazing, and sometimes horrifying story.
The book is told from the point of view of a variety of characters--all in short snippets--and through an often impassive narration style. Still, you grow to care for the few characters you do get to know: Mei and some of the other college students; kids Libby and Sara and their apocalyptic-fearing father; professors Ben and Annie and their new baby, Grace; a biology professor, Nathaniel, and his partner, Henry; and Dr. Catherine Cohen, a psychiatrist called in after the sickness starts.
There's really no way to describe this book, and I do not want to reveal too much about the plot. It's beautifully written, which is amazing, considering it's mostly a book about a near plague spreading through a town. The characters, even though their chapters are often short and sparse, are fully-formed. It's easy to get attached to them and pulled into their lives, which are so quickly altered by the sickness. And it's amazing how quickly the sickness changes life in Santa Lora: how a town can nearly become a war-zone due to illness. It was really intriguing to read about, especially when the narration style is so mesmerizing and presents such a creepy helplessness (I wish I could describe it better).
Overall, I really, really enjoyed this book. The subject matter was not what I usually read, but it was a fascinating, captivating read. I was drawn to the characters and the narration style. The book presented such an interesting scenario to think about too--what would happen if this occurred in real-life society? Walker's writing is beautiful, and I've already tracked down her novel, The Age of Miracles, on Paperbackswap.com, and look forward to reading it soon.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Express (2008) in Movies
Aug 13, 2020
I Tried
I was rooting something fierce for The Express. Sure the trailer looked cheesy, but I wanted to give it a chance. And give it a chance I did. I gave it every chance in the book and it got more painful with every second. It follows the true story of Ernie Davis and his journey to make it to the NFL .
Acting: 7
There are some solid performances for the most part but it’s unfortunately sprinkled in with what I call Hallmark Acting. It’s painfully obvious that not everyone is on the same wavelength here. Fortunately, Rob Brown is strong as Ernie Davis which makes things a bit more bearable throughout the movie.
Beginning: 3
Very slow start, mainly because I didn’t really understand what they were trying to establish with the story. Ernie is narrating, but there are a jumble of images to start and you have to make a push to piece things together. It’s also a very cliche start to a story.
Characters: 10
I did really enjoy Ernie’s character which made the movie better for me since he was the focal point. I also really appreciate his grandparents in the story, particularly his grandfather played by Charles S. Dutton. They are full of love as they make a push to steer Ernie in the right direction. Shout out to Dennis Quaid as well playing the role of the gruff coach Ben Schwartzwalder. He had a few scenes that were definitely made brighter because of him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 3
Even without knowing the story (as I didn’t) you can kind of guess and see where things are going. I didn’t feel like they did a solid enough job of showing the obstacles Ernie had to overcome. According to this, he was a beast early on and basically never looked back from there. That’s all good and fine but it takes away from the conflict needed to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 5
Out of all the sports movies I’ve watched, this one doesn’t even hold a candle. I get sleepy just thinking about it at times. The story is ultimately memorable, but there are no real moments or scenes that stand out above the rest.
Pace: 6
Plot: 4
Resolution: 8
Given the rest of the movie, the ending actually wasn’t all that bad. Without giving anything away it was quality closure for the story. It made me wonder why they couldn’t pull this off in the rest of the movie.
Overall: 57
The Express was doing ok for a bit and then it just got really weird. There is a scene where Ernie is out on the field and there are these strange heat shimmers. This, like a number of other things, just had no place in the movie. Given a do over of some sort, this wouldn’t be a bad story to see unfold on the screen.
Acting: 7
There are some solid performances for the most part but it’s unfortunately sprinkled in with what I call Hallmark Acting. It’s painfully obvious that not everyone is on the same wavelength here. Fortunately, Rob Brown is strong as Ernie Davis which makes things a bit more bearable throughout the movie.
Beginning: 3
Very slow start, mainly because I didn’t really understand what they were trying to establish with the story. Ernie is narrating, but there are a jumble of images to start and you have to make a push to piece things together. It’s also a very cliche start to a story.
Characters: 10
I did really enjoy Ernie’s character which made the movie better for me since he was the focal point. I also really appreciate his grandparents in the story, particularly his grandfather played by Charles S. Dutton. They are full of love as they make a push to steer Ernie in the right direction. Shout out to Dennis Quaid as well playing the role of the gruff coach Ben Schwartzwalder. He had a few scenes that were definitely made brighter because of him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 3
Even without knowing the story (as I didn’t) you can kind of guess and see where things are going. I didn’t feel like they did a solid enough job of showing the obstacles Ernie had to overcome. According to this, he was a beast early on and basically never looked back from there. That’s all good and fine but it takes away from the conflict needed to drive the story.
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 5
Out of all the sports movies I’ve watched, this one doesn’t even hold a candle. I get sleepy just thinking about it at times. The story is ultimately memorable, but there are no real moments or scenes that stand out above the rest.
Pace: 6
Plot: 4
Resolution: 8
Given the rest of the movie, the ending actually wasn’t all that bad. Without giving anything away it was quality closure for the story. It made me wonder why they couldn’t pull this off in the rest of the movie.
Overall: 57
The Express was doing ok for a bit and then it just got really weird. There is a scene where Ernie is out on the field and there are these strange heat shimmers. This, like a number of other things, just had no place in the movie. Given a do over of some sort, this wouldn’t be a bad story to see unfold on the screen.