Search
Search results
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated The Oxford Murders (2010) in Movies
Oct 12, 2017
Disappointing, John Hurt is the only good thing
What a ridiculous film. Apart from John Hurt, the film lacked any kind of substance but tried too hard to be clever. It consisted of several murders, with mathematical clues, leading to a big explosion that actually ended up being an anti-climax. I tend to avoid films with Elijah Wood for a reason.
JT (287 KP) rated The Oxford Murders (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
From the first couple of scenes you’d half expect to see Inspector Morse and Lewis step out from behind one of the great pillars that surround Oxford University – sadly that is not going to be the case here. The story itself could have been taken right out of an Agatha Christie novel but the subsequent plot gets mixed up like the mathematical equation it is trying to lay out.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
John Hurt plays Arthur Seldom a university professor whose life revolves around mathematical equations and whether or not we can prove truth and probability. Martin (Elijah Wood) is a graduate over from America looking at using Seldom to help him with his thesis.
The pair get mixed up in an altogether different set of circumstances when they must work together to solve a series of murders based around mathematical symbols. The Oxford Murders falls some way short of delivering on any tension or drama, which is a real shame. The script is over complicated and there is no real time to develop the characters before we are thrown head first into the first murder.
All in all it seemed rushed together. More strangely was the choice of director; Spanish born Álex de la Iglesia who also wrote the screenplay. A background largely based around foreign film I find it odd that he should have any idea about the true reflections of historic Oxford. Maybe that is where amongst other things The Oxford Murders falls down. In the hands of a more traditional English director we may have had a better outcome.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Abandon (Abandon, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I read Meg Cabot's Vanished series (previously published as 1-800-WHERE-R-U) and have drawn the same conclusion about Abandon as I did about that series: She's a fabulous story teller and can weave a wonderful intriguing mysterious story that is highly addicting (I read Abandon in five hours without stopping) but she's not a very good writer.
Let me explain: The ARC was 304 pages. If she had cut out all the unneeded phrases, descriptions, and dead wood that slowed the story down and made it harder to read, it would be closer to 200. If it were shorter, she'd have more space for more of that great plot line that she's so good at developing. But instead, I'm stuck tripping over ungrammatical sentences and awkward phrases—and let's not forget whole unnecessary paragraphs with details that don't matter, set off by dashes right in the middle of the sentence, because that's just such a good thing to put in a novel—that force you to go back and read the sentence several times so your brain doesn't get to twisted.
As for the story itself: I can't praise it enough. It was a mystery I had to solve, and some of the small clues I figured out, and others I didn't. I loved that I could figure out stuff about the same time Pierce did, but I also loved that I didn't figure out the major mystery of the story until I was supposed to. Some novelists make it too obvious, but Cabot had just enough to make it work.
I liked Pierce, but there were a few times I wanted to shake her and tell her to grow up and be honest. That is one of the reasons I couldn't stop reading, though. I wanted to see what happened because of the choices she made. And then there was the time I wanted to slap her: of course John was in love with her, why did she think he was acting like that? silly girl. Yet I couldn't have mean thoughts towards her because I liked her (and, okay, I have a soft spot for crazy main characters). John? He was quite amazing. Wild thing. Dark troubled boy. Dangerous. John needs to climb out of that novel and through my bedroom window and be my boyfriend.
The pacing and tension was perfect: I started reading and didn't stop until about five hours later when I closed the book at the end. I couldn't stop reading. That's the kind of book I like.
Now if only Cabot could write. Yes I have read worse writers, but she would be so excellent if the interior monologue of the character was less frustrating.
Content/Recommendation: No language, no sex. Ages 15+
Let me explain: The ARC was 304 pages. If she had cut out all the unneeded phrases, descriptions, and dead wood that slowed the story down and made it harder to read, it would be closer to 200. If it were shorter, she'd have more space for more of that great plot line that she's so good at developing. But instead, I'm stuck tripping over ungrammatical sentences and awkward phrases—and let's not forget whole unnecessary paragraphs with details that don't matter, set off by dashes right in the middle of the sentence, because that's just such a good thing to put in a novel—that force you to go back and read the sentence several times so your brain doesn't get to twisted.
As for the story itself: I can't praise it enough. It was a mystery I had to solve, and some of the small clues I figured out, and others I didn't. I loved that I could figure out stuff about the same time Pierce did, but I also loved that I didn't figure out the major mystery of the story until I was supposed to. Some novelists make it too obvious, but Cabot had just enough to make it work.
I liked Pierce, but there were a few times I wanted to shake her and tell her to grow up and be honest. That is one of the reasons I couldn't stop reading, though. I wanted to see what happened because of the choices she made. And then there was the time I wanted to slap her: of course John was in love with her, why did she think he was acting like that? silly girl. Yet I couldn't have mean thoughts towards her because I liked her (and, okay, I have a soft spot for crazy main characters). John? He was quite amazing. Wild thing. Dark troubled boy. Dangerous. John needs to climb out of that novel and through my bedroom window and be my boyfriend.
The pacing and tension was perfect: I started reading and didn't stop until about five hours later when I closed the book at the end. I couldn't stop reading. That's the kind of book I like.
Now if only Cabot could write. Yes I have read worse writers, but she would be so excellent if the interior monologue of the character was less frustrating.
Content/Recommendation: No language, no sex. Ages 15+
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Saga of the Swamp Thing Vol. 1 (Swamp Thing, #1) in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Early last year, I made the conversion to digital, selling off all my physical issues. There were a number of them that I had not read since the day that first came out, selling them in a mylar sleeve with a backing board. Alan Moore's SAGA OF THE SWAMP THING run was one of those series, and it was also one of the ones that I missed dearly. When Comixology announced that Vertigo sale juust before 2017 ended, i was on it, buying all 5 volumes!
I could have "gobbled" this first volume up in a NY minute; however, like a fine wine, I opted to savor each issue, pacing myself, allowing it all to sink in. I recall reading through this issues fast when they came out (this was when you could still buy comics at 7-11), running through them like a chainsaw through butter. Thankfully, I have learned to appreciate the benefits of savoring.
So, was it as good as I remembered? Nope, BETTER! The early 1980s (the first issue of his run, #20, came out in 1984) was probably some of Moore's best writing! There were no preconceived expectations when you saw his name. Sure, you had an inkling that it would likely be good, but nowhere near the level of expectations that the current comic readers have come to expect.
Prior to his assuming the writer's chair for the series, the main character was thought to still be Alec Holland. However (and this is not a spoiler at this point), as we would learn, Dr. Holland did indeed perish when his lab in the swamp was the victim of sabotage. What was left was as far from human as a chair. Swamp Thing, for all intents and purposes, was vegetable, not mammal as previously thought.
That's learned within the first issue. From there, the ride gets wild with suspense and fear, with some decidely creepy art and concepts thrown in. Essentially, a recipe for WIN!
Oh, before I close this review, I would also like to give some love to the artwork inside. Steve Bissette, followed by John Tottleben, turned in some of the most amazing art. Their attention to detail, left the series feeling creepy yet movie-like, almost as if Sam Raimi were in the director's chair! The artwork was further jazzed up by the always-exceptional coloring of Tatjiana Wood, wife of the artist Wally Wood.
Sure, there's probably other horror-related tpbs you could be reading/considering reading, but you won't find another like this one! Even Marvel's Man-Thing (which I still love; call it my "guilty pleasure") wasn't THIS good! So, enough jibber-jabbering, go pick it up already!
I could have "gobbled" this first volume up in a NY minute; however, like a fine wine, I opted to savor each issue, pacing myself, allowing it all to sink in. I recall reading through this issues fast when they came out (this was when you could still buy comics at 7-11), running through them like a chainsaw through butter. Thankfully, I have learned to appreciate the benefits of savoring.
So, was it as good as I remembered? Nope, BETTER! The early 1980s (the first issue of his run, #20, came out in 1984) was probably some of Moore's best writing! There were no preconceived expectations when you saw his name. Sure, you had an inkling that it would likely be good, but nowhere near the level of expectations that the current comic readers have come to expect.
Prior to his assuming the writer's chair for the series, the main character was thought to still be Alec Holland. However (and this is not a spoiler at this point), as we would learn, Dr. Holland did indeed perish when his lab in the swamp was the victim of sabotage. What was left was as far from human as a chair. Swamp Thing, for all intents and purposes, was vegetable, not mammal as previously thought.
That's learned within the first issue. From there, the ride gets wild with suspense and fear, with some decidely creepy art and concepts thrown in. Essentially, a recipe for WIN!
Oh, before I close this review, I would also like to give some love to the artwork inside. Steve Bissette, followed by John Tottleben, turned in some of the most amazing art. Their attention to detail, left the series feeling creepy yet movie-like, almost as if Sam Raimi were in the director's chair! The artwork was further jazzed up by the always-exceptional coloring of Tatjiana Wood, wife of the artist Wally Wood.
Sure, there's probably other horror-related tpbs you could be reading/considering reading, but you won't find another like this one! Even Marvel's Man-Thing (which I still love; call it my "guilty pleasure") wasn't THIS good! So, enough jibber-jabbering, go pick it up already!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Dirt Road in Books
May 13, 2017
Kelman is an expert in understanding people
Kelman’s new novel Dirt Road is story that takes both characters and reader on a journey right from the outset, but the journey is more than it seems. The novel begins in the West coast of Scotland where we learn that Murdo - a sixteen-year-old boy - and his father Tom are mourning the death of their mother/wife and sister/daughter. Searching for solace, they embark on a journey to Alabama, U.S.A to spend time with Uncle John and Aunt Maureen. For Murdo, family is just a happy memory, a moment in time captured in a photograph, ‘The family was four and not just him and Dad’, whilst for Tom, family is the bond that holds them together. Throughout the journey, Tom strives to guide his son and keep him on ‘the right path’, yet Murdo, as we will learn, has a path of his own to find. Stifled by the fathers influence, the boy has a tendency to stray, thus when they reach Allentown Mississippi, Murdo stumbles upon a family of musicians led by Zydeco performer Queen Monzee-ay. Murdo is as drawn to music as his father is to family, the boy himself is an accomplished accordion player, and when he is offered an opportunity to play a set with Queen Monzee-ay in two weeks’ time, we watch as the road between father and son diverges and choice and risk becomes the key plot in the story.
While this may appear a simple story line, Kelman’s exploration into the fragmented relationship between father and son gives the reader an honest analysis of family and grief. The third person narrator, with bursts of free indirect discourse from Murdo, allows the reader both an internal and external insight into the constraints of family. This parallel leaves the reader feeling uncomfortable, yet with a conflicting heart. This is Kelman’s unique writing style at its best.
Dirt Road is more than a novel of grief and family relationships though; it is a novel of risk, of following new paths with uncertainties, about leaving behind the familiarities and safety of the past and following the heart. It is about deep connections; for Murdo this is through music and the feeling of freedom that he associates with music, whilst for the other characters it is about cultural connections and Scottish ancestry. Kelman’s clever use of parallels shows the reader the intensity of human connections whilst suggesting that change and progression is possible. This great novel will linger in your thoughts for weeks after you put it down, and it brings to mind a poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
For the full poem visit (https://www.poetryfoundation.org).
Dirt Road by James Kelman
Canongate Books (14 July 2016)
While this may appear a simple story line, Kelman’s exploration into the fragmented relationship between father and son gives the reader an honest analysis of family and grief. The third person narrator, with bursts of free indirect discourse from Murdo, allows the reader both an internal and external insight into the constraints of family. This parallel leaves the reader feeling uncomfortable, yet with a conflicting heart. This is Kelman’s unique writing style at its best.
Dirt Road is more than a novel of grief and family relationships though; it is a novel of risk, of following new paths with uncertainties, about leaving behind the familiarities and safety of the past and following the heart. It is about deep connections; for Murdo this is through music and the feeling of freedom that he associates with music, whilst for the other characters it is about cultural connections and Scottish ancestry. Kelman’s clever use of parallels shows the reader the intensity of human connections whilst suggesting that change and progression is possible. This great novel will linger in your thoughts for weeks after you put it down, and it brings to mind a poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
For the full poem visit (https://www.poetryfoundation.org).
Dirt Road by James Kelman
Canongate Books (14 July 2016)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Evan Almighty (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) is a man who is going places. When last we saw Evan in “Bruce Almighty”, he was playing the foil to Jim Carrey and having one of the most spectacular on air meltdowns ever recorded.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 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.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html