Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2051 KP) rated Evil Spy School (Spy School #3) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
When Ben gets kicked out of spy school, he accepts an offer to attended SPYDER’s spy school instead. It’s an undercover assignment to find out what their next evil plan is. At least, Ben hopes that’s the case. Since he is cut off from everyone but he new fellow students, can he learn SPYDER’s plans and share them with someone else in time?
Because the setting is different, we don’t get quite as much from the usual supporting characters, but the news characters are just as great. The plot moves forward at a steady pace until the final third, when it kicks into high gear. Add in a nice dose of humor, and you’ve got a wonderful new adventure for Ben and his fans.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2015/05/book-review-evil-spy-school-by-stuart.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Because the setting is different, we don’t get quite as much from the usual supporting characters, but the news characters are just as great. The plot moves forward at a steady pace until the final third, when it kicks into high gear. Add in a nice dose of humor, and you’ve got a wonderful new adventure for Ben and his fans.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2015/05/book-review-evil-spy-school-by-stuart.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2051 KP) rated Spy Ski School (Spy School #4) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
Ben Ripley is thrilled to be officially called for his first field assignment. He’s going to Colorado to learn to ski. While there, he needs to befriend a girl so he can get close to her father and figure out his evil plans. However, Ben soon realizes getting close to his target isn’t going to be as easy as he thought. With the clock ticking, can he save the day again?
While the target audience might be middle graders, this is a delightful read for anyone. The story is strong, the pace never lags, and we get some fantastic complications and nail biting action scenes along the way. The characters are fun as always, and we get some good growth in a couple of them. There’s plenty of humor as well.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2016/10/book-review-spy-ski-school-by-stuart.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
While the target audience might be middle graders, this is a delightful read for anyone. The story is strong, the pace never lags, and we get some fantastic complications and nail biting action scenes along the way. The characters are fun as always, and we get some good growth in a couple of them. There’s plenty of humor as well.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2016/10/book-review-spy-ski-school-by-stuart.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ben-Hur (1959) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Conflict but Falls Just Short of a Classic For Me
Jewish hero Judah Ben-Hur rises up to challenge the Romans after they make him a slave.
Acting: 10
I understand that Charlton Heston’s performance as Ben-Hur is a point of contention with this movie, but I thought he delivered a strong performance. Was it perfect? Nope, but he gave me enough of a fiery presence to keep me entertained and to give me someone to root for. One thing I will not contend is that Stephen Boyd’s performance as Messala was the best in the movie. He’s an easy person to hate, but Boyd also helps you sympathize with the role as well. There’s a quiet fierceness about him that you loathe and respect at the same time.
Beginning: 5
Oh, that this was just about the Overture. It’s not. I understand full-well that a lot of classics had an Overture before the start of the movie. That wasn’t my problem. There were at least sixty minutes that could have been cut from this movie and twenty of them come from the beginning. By the time Judah and Messala converse for the first time, I was almost fully checked out. It took me a minute to get involved in the story again.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You expect an epic like this to deliver on the visuals and Ben-Hur doesn’t disappoint. The movie takes you throughout a number of different setpieces, each of them just as beautiful as the last. From the Coliseum to the Valley of the Lepers, director William Wyler puts you right where you need to be. I was captivated by the magic of the visuals and, as a result, never bored.
Conflict: 9
It is hard to stretch conflict out over the course of almost four hours, but Ben-Hur really succeeds here. You know the Romans are bad news so you feel the trouble brewing when they start marching in Judah’s city. From there, through Judah’s captivity, to his return home, there is a consistent amount of action that drives and pushes the story forward. There are some slow parts but the chariot scene alone makes up for those parts. It is historically viewed as a classic scene and it doesn’t take long to see why. By the end of it, I was cheering harder than when I watched Rocky beat up the Russian.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 9
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Ben-Hur’s story is beautiful for the most part. Again, it definitely could have been cut quite a few times, but I still rather enjoyed the adventure. It makes you really feel like you are a part of something special. If only it hadn’t overstayed it’s welcome…
Resolution: 4
Overall: 78
I refuse to call a movie a classic because everyone else does. A classic is something you want to watch over and over. When it comes to Ben-Hur, once was absolutely enough.
Acting: 10
I understand that Charlton Heston’s performance as Ben-Hur is a point of contention with this movie, but I thought he delivered a strong performance. Was it perfect? Nope, but he gave me enough of a fiery presence to keep me entertained and to give me someone to root for. One thing I will not contend is that Stephen Boyd’s performance as Messala was the best in the movie. He’s an easy person to hate, but Boyd also helps you sympathize with the role as well. There’s a quiet fierceness about him that you loathe and respect at the same time.
Beginning: 5
Oh, that this was just about the Overture. It’s not. I understand full-well that a lot of classics had an Overture before the start of the movie. That wasn’t my problem. There were at least sixty minutes that could have been cut from this movie and twenty of them come from the beginning. By the time Judah and Messala converse for the first time, I was almost fully checked out. It took me a minute to get involved in the story again.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You expect an epic like this to deliver on the visuals and Ben-Hur doesn’t disappoint. The movie takes you throughout a number of different setpieces, each of them just as beautiful as the last. From the Coliseum to the Valley of the Lepers, director William Wyler puts you right where you need to be. I was captivated by the magic of the visuals and, as a result, never bored.
Conflict: 9
It is hard to stretch conflict out over the course of almost four hours, but Ben-Hur really succeeds here. You know the Romans are bad news so you feel the trouble brewing when they start marching in Judah’s city. From there, through Judah’s captivity, to his return home, there is a consistent amount of action that drives and pushes the story forward. There are some slow parts but the chariot scene alone makes up for those parts. It is historically viewed as a classic scene and it doesn’t take long to see why. By the end of it, I was cheering harder than when I watched Rocky beat up the Russian.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 9
Pace: 6
Plot: 8
Ben-Hur’s story is beautiful for the most part. Again, it definitely could have been cut quite a few times, but I still rather enjoyed the adventure. It makes you really feel like you are a part of something special. If only it hadn’t overstayed it’s welcome…
Resolution: 4
Overall: 78
I refuse to call a movie a classic because everyone else does. A classic is something you want to watch over and over. When it comes to Ben-Hur, once was absolutely enough.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Fever Pitch (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Spring is the time of year when past failures of the fall are forgotten by most baseball fans. While hope springs eternal every spring for most fans, Boston Red Sox fans have long had a love/hate relationship with their team. This is due in large part to the Red Sox’s ongoing and often bizarre ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for year after year, decade after decade, causing fans to claim that the team has been cursed ever since they traded Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees back in 1918. They have failed to win a championship since.
That is, until the magical season of 2005 where lifetimes of tears and frustrations were cleansed by an improbable and historic comeback from a three games to none series deficit to the Yankees, and a four game sweep of the St Louis Cardinals in the World Series.
In the new romantic comedy Fever Pitch two worlds are about to collide in a fury of romance and humor when workaholic Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), meets and starts to date a school teacher named Ben (Jimmy Fallon). Though their first date is hampered by a bad virus, Lindsey is taken by Ben’s gentle and compassionate nature, finding him very kind, loving and attentive.
As the two become closer over the winter, Ben asks Lindsey to attend opening day at Fenway with him as a sign of his love and commitment to her. Knowing Ben’s passion for the game, Lindsey accepts but soon finds out, that Ben is fanatical about his love of the Sox and that every aspect of his life has to be scheduled around their
games. While this is at first a minor issue, as time goes on it becomes a bigger problem when Ben refuses to take trips or attend parties and functions that interfere with games.
Naturally this soon wears very thin for Lindsey as she begins to question how committed Ben is to her and their future. The humor in the film arises from watching the very kind and lovable Ben become a different person when he is watching his beloved Sox. Rather then painting Ben as an oddball, the story does show why he has such an extreme devotion to the team, as well as how the people around him react to his devotion. His male friends simply accept it as they are rabid fans themselves, while we learn that every woman in his past has had an issue with his love of the Sox.
What really makes the film shine is the solid work by the two leads. Barrymore has a charm and grace to her that lets Lindsey come off as a very lovable and compassionate lady, rather than a selfish shrew who craves attention. Fallon meanwhile is solid, showing the duality of his life, as well as the dilemma he has between wanting to be with Lindsey and his lifelong devotion to the Sox.
The film moves at a steady pace and has more than enough humor to make you leave the theater with a smile, even if you are not a baseball fan. While some may say the plot is a bit shallow and formulistic, the film wisely puts the attention on the two leads and not on the sports action which results in a very winning combo.
That is, until the magical season of 2005 where lifetimes of tears and frustrations were cleansed by an improbable and historic comeback from a three games to none series deficit to the Yankees, and a four game sweep of the St Louis Cardinals in the World Series.
In the new romantic comedy Fever Pitch two worlds are about to collide in a fury of romance and humor when workaholic Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), meets and starts to date a school teacher named Ben (Jimmy Fallon). Though their first date is hampered by a bad virus, Lindsey is taken by Ben’s gentle and compassionate nature, finding him very kind, loving and attentive.
As the two become closer over the winter, Ben asks Lindsey to attend opening day at Fenway with him as a sign of his love and commitment to her. Knowing Ben’s passion for the game, Lindsey accepts but soon finds out, that Ben is fanatical about his love of the Sox and that every aspect of his life has to be scheduled around their
games. While this is at first a minor issue, as time goes on it becomes a bigger problem when Ben refuses to take trips or attend parties and functions that interfere with games.
Naturally this soon wears very thin for Lindsey as she begins to question how committed Ben is to her and their future. The humor in the film arises from watching the very kind and lovable Ben become a different person when he is watching his beloved Sox. Rather then painting Ben as an oddball, the story does show why he has such an extreme devotion to the team, as well as how the people around him react to his devotion. His male friends simply accept it as they are rabid fans themselves, while we learn that every woman in his past has had an issue with his love of the Sox.
What really makes the film shine is the solid work by the two leads. Barrymore has a charm and grace to her that lets Lindsey come off as a very lovable and compassionate lady, rather than a selfish shrew who craves attention. Fallon meanwhile is solid, showing the duality of his life, as well as the dilemma he has between wanting to be with Lindsey and his lifelong devotion to the Sox.
The film moves at a steady pace and has more than enough humor to make you leave the theater with a smile, even if you are not a baseball fan. While some may say the plot is a bit shallow and formulistic, the film wisely puts the attention on the two leads and not on the sports action which results in a very winning combo.
Hazel (2934 KP) rated Hell Bay (DI Ben Kitto #1) [Audiobook] in Books
Mar 12, 2023
![Hell Bay (DI Ben Kitto #1) [Audiobook]](/uploads/profile_image/d6c/cd7b009d-0864-4ccc-8177-d68a1d82ed6c.jpg?m=1678632464)
This is the first book by Kate Rhodes I have read or listened to and it definitely won't be the last as Hell Bay was gripping and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
DI Ben Kitto returns to the place of his birth, the beautiful but bleak Scilly Isles, with the intention of taking some time following a tragedy which has resulted in him wanting to resign from his job as a detective in the murder investigation team in London but being told by his superiors to take some time out instead.
Unfortunately, this doesn't quite work out when a young girl is found on a remote beach having been stabbed to death and left to the mercy of the sea. The culprit must be one of the islanders and it is Ben Kitto who is tasked with investigating but what he uncovers is an island full of dark secrets.
With great characters, a fantastic setting and a great plot written at a perfect pace, Hell Bay is a gripping story that had me guessing and second guessing myself from the start and made all the better by the great narration of Stephen Perring who, despite the numerous different characters, did an excellent job.
Definitely recommended and I will be looking out for the rest of the series to feast my beady eyes or ears on and my thanks go to Simon & Schuster Audio UK and NetGalley for enabling me to listen to and share my thoughts of Hell Bay.
DI Ben Kitto returns to the place of his birth, the beautiful but bleak Scilly Isles, with the intention of taking some time following a tragedy which has resulted in him wanting to resign from his job as a detective in the murder investigation team in London but being told by his superiors to take some time out instead.
Unfortunately, this doesn't quite work out when a young girl is found on a remote beach having been stabbed to death and left to the mercy of the sea. The culprit must be one of the islanders and it is Ben Kitto who is tasked with investigating but what he uncovers is an island full of dark secrets.
With great characters, a fantastic setting and a great plot written at a perfect pace, Hell Bay is a gripping story that had me guessing and second guessing myself from the start and made all the better by the great narration of Stephen Perring who, despite the numerous different characters, did an excellent job.
Definitely recommended and I will be looking out for the rest of the series to feast my beady eyes or ears on and my thanks go to Simon & Schuster Audio UK and NetGalley for enabling me to listen to and share my thoughts of Hell Bay.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 22 Chaser (2018) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019
Story: 22 Chaser starts as we meet Ben (Smith) a tow truck driver who has been struggling to keep everything together with his family and with friendly rivalries in the field with the like of Wayne (Trujillo) and Sean (Ashmore) who offer him the advice he needs.
When his company gets a big break he must make the decision to continue to work for the company even if it means he must pay upfront it should bring more money back at the end, while his wife Avery (Horn) trying to get into cookery school. We are left to see just how far he will go.
Thoughts on 22 Chaser
Characters – Ben is an honest hard-working tow truck driver, he does the right thing for the injured people on accident sites which often loses him the tows. He is struggling with money back home which is putting a strain on his marriage and on this one night he will go for broke to make his son’s birthday special. Avery is Ben’s wife who is being strong around their son, trying to push Ben into a better life for them both. The rest of the characters we meet a different people in the tow truck business, we see how they operate both sides of the law.
Performances – Brian J Smith in the leading role shows how desperate side to his character, we feel how much he needs his break from this world and life. When we dive into the rest of the cast each performer is good without taking the spotlight off Brian.
Story – The story here focuses on a tow truck driver that needs to learn the reality of the game he is in, while trying to support his family, it is strange that we can compare this to ‘Nightcrawler’ when talking about the story because it shows us one man that gets deeper into a field that has darker sides about it becoming everything he doesn’t want to be to make sure his wife and child are supported. It does show how hard working people are often over looked until they show a meaner side. This isn’t the deepest and stories and does have a slow pace about it for the most part which can bring it down at times.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows us how Ben can fall into the wrong side of the law when it comes to making the right decisions about what is happening with accidents, he doesn’t cause them and the competition can become fierce.
Settings – The film keeps us in a big city, this gives us enough reason for traffic accidents to happen and shows us who the people cleaning them up are.
Scene of the Movie – The race to the accident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The pacing is very slow early on.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough movie that does get to put us in the world of tow trucks, showing the competition between drivers for jobs and how good guys might not always be first on call.
Overall: Slow but interesting crime drama.
When his company gets a big break he must make the decision to continue to work for the company even if it means he must pay upfront it should bring more money back at the end, while his wife Avery (Horn) trying to get into cookery school. We are left to see just how far he will go.
Thoughts on 22 Chaser
Characters – Ben is an honest hard-working tow truck driver, he does the right thing for the injured people on accident sites which often loses him the tows. He is struggling with money back home which is putting a strain on his marriage and on this one night he will go for broke to make his son’s birthday special. Avery is Ben’s wife who is being strong around their son, trying to push Ben into a better life for them both. The rest of the characters we meet a different people in the tow truck business, we see how they operate both sides of the law.
Performances – Brian J Smith in the leading role shows how desperate side to his character, we feel how much he needs his break from this world and life. When we dive into the rest of the cast each performer is good without taking the spotlight off Brian.
Story – The story here focuses on a tow truck driver that needs to learn the reality of the game he is in, while trying to support his family, it is strange that we can compare this to ‘Nightcrawler’ when talking about the story because it shows us one man that gets deeper into a field that has darker sides about it becoming everything he doesn’t want to be to make sure his wife and child are supported. It does show how hard working people are often over looked until they show a meaner side. This isn’t the deepest and stories and does have a slow pace about it for the most part which can bring it down at times.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows us how Ben can fall into the wrong side of the law when it comes to making the right decisions about what is happening with accidents, he doesn’t cause them and the competition can become fierce.
Settings – The film keeps us in a big city, this gives us enough reason for traffic accidents to happen and shows us who the people cleaning them up are.
Scene of the Movie – The race to the accident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The pacing is very slow early on.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough movie that does get to put us in the world of tow trucks, showing the competition between drivers for jobs and how good guys might not always be first on call.
Overall: Slow but interesting crime drama.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Skyfall (2012) in Movies
Jun 22, 2018
You almost get the sense at the moment that Eon (makers of the Bond films) quite enjoy the cachet and prestige (and huge box office) associated with these films but would really secretly rather be doing another kind of film. Hence the effort, throughout the Craig movies, to get away from the trusted and (when well executed) lucrative Bond formula and do something different.
Hence this, which is not as earnest or obviously Bourne-inspired as Quantum of Solace, but still departs from the playbook in a number of key ways. It's a very introspective Bond film, quite glum and dark (though Bardem tries his best to have some fun with his role) - there's no main Bond girl per se (unless you count Judi Dench), and the exotic location for the finale is eschewed in favour of the London underground and foggy Scotland. As a change of pace it is striking, but if every Bond film was like this I think people would soon get sick of it (as the reaction to SPECTRE perhaps proved). Still, much good stuff here, Naomie Harries, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw make good first impressions, and there's some well-staged action. Whatever the influence this film ends up having on the franchise, on its own terms this is a fine film.
Hence this, which is not as earnest or obviously Bourne-inspired as Quantum of Solace, but still departs from the playbook in a number of key ways. It's a very introspective Bond film, quite glum and dark (though Bardem tries his best to have some fun with his role) - there's no main Bond girl per se (unless you count Judi Dench), and the exotic location for the finale is eschewed in favour of the London underground and foggy Scotland. As a change of pace it is striking, but if every Bond film was like this I think people would soon get sick of it (as the reaction to SPECTRE perhaps proved). Still, much good stuff here, Naomie Harries, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw make good first impressions, and there's some well-staged action. Whatever the influence this film ends up having on the franchise, on its own terms this is a fine film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 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.