Search
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
25+ years in the making!
Up until its release, "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" would have been at the top of any movie list featuring movies in development hell never to actually make it to the big screen. Those who are interested should read the lengthy details of the various derailed productions of the film including its original incarnation starring Johnny Depp and the late Jean Rochefort. The film chronicles can even be viewed on their own in the 2002 documentary film "Lost in La Mancha".
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
May 10, 2019 (Updated May 10, 2019)
"i am iron man 2.0"
Marking the commencement of the second phase of Marvel Cinematic Universe after the first one culminated with The Avengers, Iron Man 3 presents a definite improvement over its insufferably insipid predecessor but it still falls short of the magical experience that was the first Iron Man film. However, it does carry a new energy & has a refreshing vibe to it, thanks to the new director at helm.
Iron Man 3 continues the story of Tony Stark who's recovering from post-traumatic stress caused by the events of The Avengers. Unable to sleep & genuinely afraid of losing what he loves, Stark's life is turned upside down after he issues a threat to a radical terrorist who retaliates by destroying his personal world, leaving him far more vulnerable than ever before & forcing him to rebuild from the scratch.
Co-written & directed by Shane Black, Iron Man 3 really benefits from a fresh perspective & is an enjoyable ride for the most part but is also marred by its attempt to try out way too many things at once, out of which only a few work out in a convincing manner. Technical aspects are finely executed for its Cinematography favours a slightly darker tone, Editing steadily paces its narrative while Brian Tyler's score adds more vibrancy to its plot.
Coming to the performances, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley & Rebecca Hall join the reprising cast & ably fill up their given roles while Robert Downey Jr. once again manages to impress the most. The best thing about this sequel is the position it puts Tony Stark in & Downey Jr. does a terrific job in bringing that vulnerability on the screen. Also, while I was a bit furious at what they did with Iron Man's arch-nemesis, I did later warm up to what their intent was here.
On an overall scale, Iron Man 3 is a solid follow up to Iron Man & you don't even have to go through the crap that was Iron Man 2 to get to this one. The film's intent to cover the darker issues at hand while keeping itself light-hearted & plenty of fun is a combination that doesn't gel so well, is at friction on many occasions & is bound to divide its viewers, but its improvement over everything that was so wrong with its predecessor nevertheless makes it a welcome chapter, if not a worthy one.
Iron Man 3 continues the story of Tony Stark who's recovering from post-traumatic stress caused by the events of The Avengers. Unable to sleep & genuinely afraid of losing what he loves, Stark's life is turned upside down after he issues a threat to a radical terrorist who retaliates by destroying his personal world, leaving him far more vulnerable than ever before & forcing him to rebuild from the scratch.
Co-written & directed by Shane Black, Iron Man 3 really benefits from a fresh perspective & is an enjoyable ride for the most part but is also marred by its attempt to try out way too many things at once, out of which only a few work out in a convincing manner. Technical aspects are finely executed for its Cinematography favours a slightly darker tone, Editing steadily paces its narrative while Brian Tyler's score adds more vibrancy to its plot.
Coming to the performances, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley & Rebecca Hall join the reprising cast & ably fill up their given roles while Robert Downey Jr. once again manages to impress the most. The best thing about this sequel is the position it puts Tony Stark in & Downey Jr. does a terrific job in bringing that vulnerability on the screen. Also, while I was a bit furious at what they did with Iron Man's arch-nemesis, I did later warm up to what their intent was here.
On an overall scale, Iron Man 3 is a solid follow up to Iron Man & you don't even have to go through the crap that was Iron Man 2 to get to this one. The film's intent to cover the darker issues at hand while keeping itself light-hearted & plenty of fun is a combination that doesn't gel so well, is at friction on many occasions & is bound to divide its viewers, but its improvement over everything that was so wrong with its predecessor nevertheless makes it a welcome chapter, if not a worthy one.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"if you could make god bleed people would cease to believe in him"
What made Iron Man so great was its original story, exciting action, and stellar performances. But beneath all the spectacle was a heart, characters we cared about and a coherent story in which we watched a narsasistic asshole become a good guy. All of that has vanished in the rushed, noisy, but enjoyable sequel.
Tony Stark is now living the life of a rockstar, a superhero that everyone knows the identity of, enjoying a celebrity lifestyle. Meanwhile, a villain connected to Tony's past recreates his technology and seeks revenge. Tony also deals with the mystery of his dead parents, his relationship with Pepper, wards off government attempts to control his technology, rebuffs his corporate rival, and has to rework his technology that is slowly killing him. Oh, and The Avengers show up.
If that sounds like an overcrowded movie to you, that's because it is. Iron Man 2 acts as an Iron Man sequel and an Avengers prequel. The clashing of these two stories is due to an unfocused narrative trying to cram in ten different storylines. Half the stories don't conclude in a satisfying way, and we're left with a pretty looking movie.
Luckily the performances are still great, Robert Downey Jr. is again a delight to watch, Sam Rockwell is fun as his counterpart rival, and Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as best friend Rhodes, a worthy replacement. Scarlett Johansson joins the cast as an Avengers refenerence, with very little to do other than look good and kick ass.
Jon Favreau seems much less interested in the project this time around, as he falls under the weight of the studio pushing for a sequel in two years as opposed to three. The script has a couple of witty highlights, mostly with Same Rockwell as Tony's business rival.
The action is thrilling and everything you'd want when it comes, but it doesn't show up often. The visual effects are improved, and the sound design is top notch. The score is mediocre, with a few notable exceptions.
There is too much going on for one movie, but by the end of the movie you're left wanting more. Not enough time was devoted to the different characters and plot lines, which results in a highly uneven movie with short bursts of excitement and a solid cast. Worth one watch.
Tony Stark is now living the life of a rockstar, a superhero that everyone knows the identity of, enjoying a celebrity lifestyle. Meanwhile, a villain connected to Tony's past recreates his technology and seeks revenge. Tony also deals with the mystery of his dead parents, his relationship with Pepper, wards off government attempts to control his technology, rebuffs his corporate rival, and has to rework his technology that is slowly killing him. Oh, and The Avengers show up.
If that sounds like an overcrowded movie to you, that's because it is. Iron Man 2 acts as an Iron Man sequel and an Avengers prequel. The clashing of these two stories is due to an unfocused narrative trying to cram in ten different storylines. Half the stories don't conclude in a satisfying way, and we're left with a pretty looking movie.
Luckily the performances are still great, Robert Downey Jr. is again a delight to watch, Sam Rockwell is fun as his counterpart rival, and Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as best friend Rhodes, a worthy replacement. Scarlett Johansson joins the cast as an Avengers refenerence, with very little to do other than look good and kick ass.
Jon Favreau seems much less interested in the project this time around, as he falls under the weight of the studio pushing for a sequel in two years as opposed to three. The script has a couple of witty highlights, mostly with Same Rockwell as Tony's business rival.
The action is thrilling and everything you'd want when it comes, but it doesn't show up often. The visual effects are improved, and the sound design is top notch. The score is mediocre, with a few notable exceptions.
There is too much going on for one movie, but by the end of the movie you're left wanting more. Not enough time was devoted to the different characters and plot lines, which results in a highly uneven movie with short bursts of excitement and a solid cast. Worth one watch.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Dreamstrider in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Every time the concept body invasion appears in a book, I regard it with absolute awe and creepiness (an odd combination, methinks).
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/11/supernatural_dudeyes.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></div>
Have I mentioned I feel really disturbed over the idea of someone a dreamstrider having the ability to take control of your body and access to your thoughts while unconscious, even for a short period of time?
The concept, however, is uber-cool. Smith brings us to a fantasy world where using dreams in the form of espionage is completely acceptable as a dreamstrider, Livia works for the ministry, and she inhabits another persons body while they are asleep.
If I placed Livia in a character category, she would be right next to Alina Starkov from Leigh Bardugos <i>Grisha</i> trilogy. Over the course of the book, shes on the downside; on the plus side, it fits so well with Livias character and past. Livia lived her entire life as a tunneler, trying to survive day by day until she meets Professor Hesse, where she is introduced to her potential as a dreamstrider and the good she can do for the empire for her citizenship and freedom.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/11/freedom.gif"; width="320" height="128" border="0" /></div>
Unlike Alina Starkov (Alina is too mopey over Mal, okay?), Livias mope is more realistic. She has big dreams and strives to achieve them, crushes over her best friend (its harder for males to be one of my best friends that circle is <em>elite</em>), secretly sweet, and insecure/cautious about many things.
But enough about Livia and how shes secretly awesome even though she will never <i>ever</i> admit it. I didnt feel very into <em>Dreamstrider</em> the passphrases in the Land of the Iron Winds are written in a very rhythmic style, but I didnt care too much aside from the fact it sounds poetic. But poetry and I dont get along, and this is why I will never read Ellen Hopkins. I have nothing against the author, though.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/11/I-Know-Nothing-Apparently-On-Game-Of-Thrones.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></div>
Ellen Hopkins aside, dreaming is a big deal it plays a part in almost everything in the Barstadt Empire, but it felt more like a cultural thing (like Greek myths are to Greeks). Im taking it all in, but the whole dreaming thing? Its just there, and the only big deal seemed to be using dreaming in detective work and finding out information. The whole point of the book is really just Livia becoming more confident in not just herself, but her abilities. By the end of the book, I felt satisfied, but I just wanted more from the book.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-dreamstrider-by-lindsay-smi/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Every time the concept body invasion appears in a book, I regard it with absolute awe and creepiness (an odd combination, methinks).
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/11/supernatural_dudeyes.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></div>
Have I mentioned I feel really disturbed over the idea of someone a dreamstrider having the ability to take control of your body and access to your thoughts while unconscious, even for a short period of time?
The concept, however, is uber-cool. Smith brings us to a fantasy world where using dreams in the form of espionage is completely acceptable as a dreamstrider, Livia works for the ministry, and she inhabits another persons body while they are asleep.
If I placed Livia in a character category, she would be right next to Alina Starkov from Leigh Bardugos <i>Grisha</i> trilogy. Over the course of the book, shes on the downside; on the plus side, it fits so well with Livias character and past. Livia lived her entire life as a tunneler, trying to survive day by day until she meets Professor Hesse, where she is introduced to her potential as a dreamstrider and the good she can do for the empire for her citizenship and freedom.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/11/freedom.gif"; width="320" height="128" border="0" /></div>
Unlike Alina Starkov (Alina is too mopey over Mal, okay?), Livias mope is more realistic. She has big dreams and strives to achieve them, crushes over her best friend (its harder for males to be one of my best friends that circle is <em>elite</em>), secretly sweet, and insecure/cautious about many things.
But enough about Livia and how shes secretly awesome even though she will never <i>ever</i> admit it. I didnt feel very into <em>Dreamstrider</em> the passphrases in the Land of the Iron Winds are written in a very rhythmic style, but I didnt care too much aside from the fact it sounds poetic. But poetry and I dont get along, and this is why I will never read Ellen Hopkins. I have nothing against the author, though.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/11/I-Know-Nothing-Apparently-On-Game-Of-Thrones.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></div>
Ellen Hopkins aside, dreaming is a big deal it plays a part in almost everything in the Barstadt Empire, but it felt more like a cultural thing (like Greek myths are to Greeks). Im taking it all in, but the whole dreaming thing? Its just there, and the only big deal seemed to be using dreaming in detective work and finding out information. The whole point of the book is really just Livia becoming more confident in not just herself, but her abilities. By the end of the book, I felt satisfied, but I just wanted more from the book.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-dreamstrider-by-lindsay-smi/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
The Weather Station by The Weather Station
Album Watch
On her fourth (and tellingly self-titled) album as The Weather Station, Tamara Lindeman reinvents,...
alternative folk rock
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Good Kind of Bad in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Firstly Id like to thank Netgalley and Rita Brassington for the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
<b>3.5 stars!
<i>Secrets don't stay secret for long.</i></b>
This was definitely slow to start. After getting into my last read almost instantly <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1637742966">;(All The Ugly and Wonderful Things)</a> this one didnt seem like it was going to be my cup of tea, but after I got to around the 20% mark things started getting a little more interesting. I did enjoy reading this book, it was a much lighter read than my previous so it was nice to not really feel anything <b>I really do mean that in the nicest way possible btw!</b> For me, this book was an easy & quick read that was entertaining but just a little bit OTT. I think this book has a lot of cliches, all very predictable, things I guessed rather easily and so if it hadnt been for that, this would have probably been rated higher, but I prefer books that challenge and shock me.
Another problem I had with this book was that I felt like there are whole chunks of time missing from the story that either really could have helped with character and plot development or could have been explained better so we realised it had disappeared before our eyes... <spoiler>eg. she runs to Ninas apartment (which she says is only a short distance), sees Nina die, then runs away to the police station, stays outside for a little bit pondering what she should do (and obviously she doesnt choose the right thing) then ends up a cafe, only for Evan to walk in a claim shes been gone hours? Like where the <i>heck</i> did all those hours go?</spoiler>
Everything in this book was <i>massively</i> over the top. Ive said before in a review that books are supposed to take you away from everything and land you into something fictional and exciting. But there does get a point where things become too fictional. The crazy storyline wouldnt have mattered so much if it wasnt for the fact that all the characters were completely unrealistic people.
However the biggest downfall for this book was the characters. To love a book, youve got to love the characters, and I didnt.
Our main lady (we never find out her first name) of the book was beyond irritating. I felt like every single little thing she did was the wrong thing. She faced some really awful stuff throughout the book and then went about sorting it out in all the wrongs ways! She wanted you to think she was a high class, intelligent, independant lady, but in actual fact she was airheaded, weak and damn right ridiculous. What annoyed me most about her was the fact that she was ready to believe <i>anyone.</i> She knew all the people in this book for 3 months tops and she always just believed what they said, no questions asked. <spoiler>Also no questions asked as to why Evan was calling her honey & baby all of a sudden!</spoiler>
As for Joe, its pretty obvious why you wouldnt like him. Hes a cock from the start of the relationship, I dont understand what she saw in him to begin with to be honest.
Then theres Evan, the good guy cop who comes to save the damsel in distress how predictable he is. Hes the easiest character to work out in the world of fictional characters. I mean cmon, there was no mystery to him at all.
After all my complaining, this was still an enjoyable read for me. It wasn't one of those books I try and force myself to read just to finish it, I actually wanted to find out what was happening. I will say that I <b>hadnt</b> predicted the <i>ending</i> ending. I had predicted most of what was going to happen but there were elements I hadnt been expecting. Thats definitely what gave it the extra point 5 of a star, otherwise it would have just remained a mediocre 3 stars. I would recommend this to people who like fast paced thrillers. I think this is the perfect holiday book!
<b>3.5 stars!
<i>Secrets don't stay secret for long.</i></b>
This was definitely slow to start. After getting into my last read almost instantly <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1637742966">;(All The Ugly and Wonderful Things)</a> this one didnt seem like it was going to be my cup of tea, but after I got to around the 20% mark things started getting a little more interesting. I did enjoy reading this book, it was a much lighter read than my previous so it was nice to not really feel anything <b>I really do mean that in the nicest way possible btw!</b> For me, this book was an easy & quick read that was entertaining but just a little bit OTT. I think this book has a lot of cliches, all very predictable, things I guessed rather easily and so if it hadnt been for that, this would have probably been rated higher, but I prefer books that challenge and shock me.
Another problem I had with this book was that I felt like there are whole chunks of time missing from the story that either really could have helped with character and plot development or could have been explained better so we realised it had disappeared before our eyes... <spoiler>eg. she runs to Ninas apartment (which she says is only a short distance), sees Nina die, then runs away to the police station, stays outside for a little bit pondering what she should do (and obviously she doesnt choose the right thing) then ends up a cafe, only for Evan to walk in a claim shes been gone hours? Like where the <i>heck</i> did all those hours go?</spoiler>
Everything in this book was <i>massively</i> over the top. Ive said before in a review that books are supposed to take you away from everything and land you into something fictional and exciting. But there does get a point where things become too fictional. The crazy storyline wouldnt have mattered so much if it wasnt for the fact that all the characters were completely unrealistic people.
However the biggest downfall for this book was the characters. To love a book, youve got to love the characters, and I didnt.
Our main lady (we never find out her first name) of the book was beyond irritating. I felt like every single little thing she did was the wrong thing. She faced some really awful stuff throughout the book and then went about sorting it out in all the wrongs ways! She wanted you to think she was a high class, intelligent, independant lady, but in actual fact she was airheaded, weak and damn right ridiculous. What annoyed me most about her was the fact that she was ready to believe <i>anyone.</i> She knew all the people in this book for 3 months tops and she always just believed what they said, no questions asked. <spoiler>Also no questions asked as to why Evan was calling her honey & baby all of a sudden!</spoiler>
As for Joe, its pretty obvious why you wouldnt like him. Hes a cock from the start of the relationship, I dont understand what she saw in him to begin with to be honest.
Then theres Evan, the good guy cop who comes to save the damsel in distress how predictable he is. Hes the easiest character to work out in the world of fictional characters. I mean cmon, there was no mystery to him at all.
After all my complaining, this was still an enjoyable read for me. It wasn't one of those books I try and force myself to read just to finish it, I actually wanted to find out what was happening. I will say that I <b>hadnt</b> predicted the <i>ending</i> ending. I had predicted most of what was going to happen but there were elements I hadnt been expecting. Thats definitely what gave it the extra point 5 of a star, otherwise it would have just remained a mediocre 3 stars. I would recommend this to people who like fast paced thrillers. I think this is the perfect holiday book!
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) Jul 2, 2019