Search
Search results
Photo2Fun HD - 1-click photo montage
Photo & Video
App
Create photo montages, magazine covers, effects, collages, greeting cards, place text labels or...
Grandma's Garden
Games and Education
App
Join this charming dancing Grandma and all her silly veggies for fun adventures in the garden! She...
KaiserTone - Audio Player (HiRes)
Music and Lifestyle
App
Feel the power of music. KaiserTone contains the "Amazing Quality Sound Engine AQS-VIII”. This...
Sky Bet - Sports Betting
Sports and Entertainment
App
Sky Bet, sponsors of the Football League, bring you the most advanced sports betting app for the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Better then it looks.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been years since I’ve seen the original 1995 Jumanji, but from what I can remember as a 5-10 year old (not sure when I got around to owning the VHS) I enjoyed it. Robin Williams was on fire in the 90’s and turned in another comparable performance in this fun action adventure film. This new incarnation of the Jumanji tale changes direction a bit. For one it swaps the outdated board game that contains an entire jungle world inside it, for a more cultural relevant video game console that contains an entire jungle world inside it. I’m actually surprised they didn't use an iPad. 2017’s Jumanji also adds in a body swapping element. The teens that enter the game suddenly become adult video game characters. Complete with skills and weakness of varying degrees of usefulness.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
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.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Survive: Escape from Atlantis! in Tabletop Games
Sep 4, 2019 (Updated Jul 2, 2020)
I have never been on a sinking anything. Sure, I have flipped over kayaks, and paddle-boards, and anything else that requires me to balance on top of water. But I cannot imagine the terror of being on an island that just… sinks into the deep. Oh also running out of room and having to swim to safe land. Oh also while sharks, whales, and sea monsters are chasing me. You know what? Maybe I’m cool with being located in the Midwest. I’ll just play this game and live vicariously through the esceeples (escaping meeples? I need a handbook for these -eeple terms).
Survive: Escape from Atlantis! (which I now will call Survive) is an competitive adventure game featuring action points, grid movement, secret unit deployment, dice rolls, and lots of take-that. And little boats. It also can destroy friendships and ruin evenings. Play at your own risk.
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. We ARE including the 5-6 player mini expansion, however. Should we review the others in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Also, I do not intend to detail every rule in the book, but give our readers an idea of how the game plays and our thoughts on it. -T
To setup a game of Survive, each player will choose a color and take into their supply all the meeples of that color and two boats. Place all the terrain tiles randomly (and face down) within the bolded line on the board to create the central island. Place out the sea serpents on the sea serpent spots as menacingly as possible. Players then take turns placing their numbered meeples on terrain tiles until all meeples have been placed, and their boateeples on any water space near the island they wish. Keep aside the shark, whale, and dolphin meeples for later. Give the die to the first player and you are ready to play.
On a player’s turn they will 1. Play any tiles from their hand, 2. Move meeples, 3. Remove terrain a tile, 4. Roll the die and move creatures. At the beginning of the game nobody will have any tiles in hand to play, so skip this step if there are no tiles in hand. On subsequent turns players may have collected tiles as a result of the #3 action, and now is the time to play those. Typically they are beneficial for the active player or detrimental to the opponents. Next, the active player will move their meeples in any combination three total board hexes. This can be done with one or more meeples on land or in the water. There are movement restrictions that I will not cover here. After movement, the active player will remove one of the terrain tiles with the lowest elevation (sand, forest, then mountain tiles). The player flips over the tile and will play it immediately if it shows an arrow, or keeps it in hand if it shows a hand icon. Finally, the active player will roll the red die and move creatures per the movement table printed on the board.
Creature movement creates the tension in the game (as if fighting over the boats wasn’t enough). You see, when sharks enter the board and are moved, they are hungry for swimmer meeples (obv). Whales are hungry(?) for boats and will destroy them but fling the meeples aboard into the water to become swimmers. Sea serpents don’t care. They will eat swimmers and manned boats… but they’re the slowest movers. So consider that.
Play continues in this fashion until the either all meeples have been removed from the play grid, or a player flips over the volcano mountain tile and ends the game. Any meeples who have made it to the safety of the outer islands are worth the VP printed on their bottoms. Wait, not the butts. The bottom of the meeples. Which I guess are the feet.
Components. To reiterate, in case it was missed, we are reviewing the 2010 Stronghold edition. There is a newer version, and it seems to look a little better but plays the same. However, I love the components of this version too. The meeples are fine, the creatures are cool, the varying thicknesses of the terrain tiles makes for an interesting mini-3D look, and the board is great without being too busy and distracting. I have absolutely no issues with these components and think they are super.
Now, you may have read in my intro that this game may ruin friendships and the evening, and I really am not joking about this. I have played this so many times where at least one person becomes completely angered by the chomping of the shark or the horrible movement of the sea serpent adjacent to their boat. It’s just a game, and it’s inevitable in this one – your meeples will get eaten. It’s gonna happen! When I teach this now I try to make that apparent right away because it is then not viewed as absolutely treachery when it happens to newer players. Should you be playing with sensitive gamers, please instruct them early that it WILL happen or you’re gonna have a bad time.
However, this game is great! I love it now as much as I ever have. It’s an older horse for me, but one of which I will never tire. I can and love to play it with new gamers, especially the ones that are hoping to join the inner circle. If you can hang through a game of Survive without being angered and taking it all in stride, you are welcome at my table ANY time. That said, as you can see by our ratings, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a mighty and well-deserved 21 / 24. If you enjoy games that upset your players and want a cool theme on it, check out Survive: Escape from Atlantis!
Survive: Escape from Atlantis! (which I now will call Survive) is an competitive adventure game featuring action points, grid movement, secret unit deployment, dice rolls, and lots of take-that. And little boats. It also can destroy friendships and ruin evenings. Play at your own risk.
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions to this game, but we are not reviewing them at this time. We ARE including the 5-6 player mini expansion, however. Should we review the others in the future we will either update this review or post a link to the new material here. Also, I do not intend to detail every rule in the book, but give our readers an idea of how the game plays and our thoughts on it. -T
To setup a game of Survive, each player will choose a color and take into their supply all the meeples of that color and two boats. Place all the terrain tiles randomly (and face down) within the bolded line on the board to create the central island. Place out the sea serpents on the sea serpent spots as menacingly as possible. Players then take turns placing their numbered meeples on terrain tiles until all meeples have been placed, and their boateeples on any water space near the island they wish. Keep aside the shark, whale, and dolphin meeples for later. Give the die to the first player and you are ready to play.
On a player’s turn they will 1. Play any tiles from their hand, 2. Move meeples, 3. Remove terrain a tile, 4. Roll the die and move creatures. At the beginning of the game nobody will have any tiles in hand to play, so skip this step if there are no tiles in hand. On subsequent turns players may have collected tiles as a result of the #3 action, and now is the time to play those. Typically they are beneficial for the active player or detrimental to the opponents. Next, the active player will move their meeples in any combination three total board hexes. This can be done with one or more meeples on land or in the water. There are movement restrictions that I will not cover here. After movement, the active player will remove one of the terrain tiles with the lowest elevation (sand, forest, then mountain tiles). The player flips over the tile and will play it immediately if it shows an arrow, or keeps it in hand if it shows a hand icon. Finally, the active player will roll the red die and move creatures per the movement table printed on the board.
Creature movement creates the tension in the game (as if fighting over the boats wasn’t enough). You see, when sharks enter the board and are moved, they are hungry for swimmer meeples (obv). Whales are hungry(?) for boats and will destroy them but fling the meeples aboard into the water to become swimmers. Sea serpents don’t care. They will eat swimmers and manned boats… but they’re the slowest movers. So consider that.
Play continues in this fashion until the either all meeples have been removed from the play grid, or a player flips over the volcano mountain tile and ends the game. Any meeples who have made it to the safety of the outer islands are worth the VP printed on their bottoms. Wait, not the butts. The bottom of the meeples. Which I guess are the feet.
Components. To reiterate, in case it was missed, we are reviewing the 2010 Stronghold edition. There is a newer version, and it seems to look a little better but plays the same. However, I love the components of this version too. The meeples are fine, the creatures are cool, the varying thicknesses of the terrain tiles makes for an interesting mini-3D look, and the board is great without being too busy and distracting. I have absolutely no issues with these components and think they are super.
Now, you may have read in my intro that this game may ruin friendships and the evening, and I really am not joking about this. I have played this so many times where at least one person becomes completely angered by the chomping of the shark or the horrible movement of the sea serpent adjacent to their boat. It’s just a game, and it’s inevitable in this one – your meeples will get eaten. It’s gonna happen! When I teach this now I try to make that apparent right away because it is then not viewed as absolutely treachery when it happens to newer players. Should you be playing with sensitive gamers, please instruct them early that it WILL happen or you’re gonna have a bad time.
However, this game is great! I love it now as much as I ever have. It’s an older horse for me, but one of which I will never tire. I can and love to play it with new gamers, especially the ones that are hoping to join the inner circle. If you can hang through a game of Survive without being angered and taking it all in stride, you are welcome at my table ANY time. That said, as you can see by our ratings, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a mighty and well-deserved 21 / 24. If you enjoy games that upset your players and want a cool theme on it, check out Survive: Escape from Atlantis!
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Apr 18, 2017
New, yet Nostalgic
So whenever I hear that there's going to be a new Star Wars Movie, I get so excited EVERY TIME! However, that's not to say that I don't always feel nervous about this next one could be "The Bad Star Wars Film" because whilst I can find some good aspects of the prequel trilogy (SOME! Not a lot but there is some) I don't enjoy them and prefer to ignore them when having a Star Wars Movie marathon.
So when I heard that there's this film being made that's not and 'episode' but will have some connections to the original trilogy, I was nervous that it might blow some of the lore out the window and try and make their own lore that doesn't fit in with the prequels or the sequels. On the other hand I was so excited to feel that I was getting to see new characters and more of the lore on film such as Kyber Crystals and Jedha itself.
The characters were incredible in my opinion! Felicity Jones portrayed Jyn Erso, and really brought the strong female lead to a new generation of Star Wars fans and film fans in general. Jyn Erso is the Princess Leia of this new generation and honestly she had quite a lot to live up to following Daisy Ridley's portrayal as the strong female lead character, Rey, in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Long story short, Felicity Jones nailed it! She's strong, independent but also has a lot of history and emotion that we don't get to see a lot of.
Then there's characters like K-2SO who is hilarious in my opinion and Alan Tudyk really brought a droid to life and made him feel more human, but also 'too good to be a human character', because there are certain aspects of the film where I was sat thinking "This character is hilarious to me, but I think the fact that he's a droid and doesn't fully understand a living, breathing, being's train of thought. So if this character was written as a human he wouldn't be as funny to me."
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
My issue with the film, whilst I did enjoy it and understand WHY they ended it with Jyn's and Cassian's death, but I would love to have seen MORE of these characters. If they wanted to do a film with those characters in the future, it would have to be a more coming of age movie for Jyn and whilst I wouldn't mind seeing more of her growing up to understand her character more, I'd have preferred to see an aftermath film, because I think they could totally write the character to be someone who still fights for the rebellion but has some reason not to be in the events that take place in the original trilogy. Maybe she's taking care of some surviving death troopers, or trying to find out what the Empire's plans are on another planet or in another system because to think that the Empire had all of their subjects in one place concentrating on one project is ridiculous. Perhaps the First Order was being formed secretly in another system, or the Empire was enslaving some planets to prepare them for the Empires master plan of ruling the galaxy.
Overall, I just wanted more of these characters because they were just well written and the film was shot beautifully. To my knowledge, from the top of my head there weren't any jumpy editing cuts, or any moments where, due to camera movement, I would think "what's going on I can't follow the action" etc. It was brilliantly made and it very quickly became not just one of my favourite movies of all time, but one of my favourite Star Wars movies! But I have to give it a 9/10 because of the reasons I stated above...I need more of these characters in future aftermath films, but it cant happen now because of the ending and that makes me sad.
Brilliant Movie, Brilliant Cast, and of course....
THE DARTH VADER CORRIDOR SCENE!
So when I heard that there's this film being made that's not and 'episode' but will have some connections to the original trilogy, I was nervous that it might blow some of the lore out the window and try and make their own lore that doesn't fit in with the prequels or the sequels. On the other hand I was so excited to feel that I was getting to see new characters and more of the lore on film such as Kyber Crystals and Jedha itself.
The characters were incredible in my opinion! Felicity Jones portrayed Jyn Erso, and really brought the strong female lead to a new generation of Star Wars fans and film fans in general. Jyn Erso is the Princess Leia of this new generation and honestly she had quite a lot to live up to following Daisy Ridley's portrayal as the strong female lead character, Rey, in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Long story short, Felicity Jones nailed it! She's strong, independent but also has a lot of history and emotion that we don't get to see a lot of.
Then there's characters like K-2SO who is hilarious in my opinion and Alan Tudyk really brought a droid to life and made him feel more human, but also 'too good to be a human character', because there are certain aspects of the film where I was sat thinking "This character is hilarious to me, but I think the fact that he's a droid and doesn't fully understand a living, breathing, being's train of thought. So if this character was written as a human he wouldn't be as funny to me."
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
My issue with the film, whilst I did enjoy it and understand WHY they ended it with Jyn's and Cassian's death, but I would love to have seen MORE of these characters. If they wanted to do a film with those characters in the future, it would have to be a more coming of age movie for Jyn and whilst I wouldn't mind seeing more of her growing up to understand her character more, I'd have preferred to see an aftermath film, because I think they could totally write the character to be someone who still fights for the rebellion but has some reason not to be in the events that take place in the original trilogy. Maybe she's taking care of some surviving death troopers, or trying to find out what the Empire's plans are on another planet or in another system because to think that the Empire had all of their subjects in one place concentrating on one project is ridiculous. Perhaps the First Order was being formed secretly in another system, or the Empire was enslaving some planets to prepare them for the Empires master plan of ruling the galaxy.
Overall, I just wanted more of these characters because they were just well written and the film was shot beautifully. To my knowledge, from the top of my head there weren't any jumpy editing cuts, or any moments where, due to camera movement, I would think "what's going on I can't follow the action" etc. It was brilliantly made and it very quickly became not just one of my favourite movies of all time, but one of my favourite Star Wars movies! But I have to give it a 9/10 because of the reasons I stated above...I need more of these characters in future aftermath films, but it cant happen now because of the ending and that makes me sad.
Brilliant Movie, Brilliant Cast, and of course....
THE DARTH VADER CORRIDOR SCENE!