Search
Search results
Kevin Smith recommended JFK (1991) in Movies (curated)
Alison Pink (7 KP) rated The Collectors (Camel Club, #2) in Books
Jan 15, 2018
This is the 2nd book in Baldacci's Camel Club series. Just like the 1st it was a fast paced thriller. This time it involved a casino owner, con men, & a defense contractor. Not to mention the Library of Congress, book restoreres & librarians. Oliver Stone is on his game again, as is Baldacci. Great read!
Kevin Phillipson (9931 KP) rated JFK (1991) in Movies
Nov 29, 2021
I haven't seen this movie in almost 30 years not since it first came out till tonight it was good then and still is this is you're kinda If you're into conspiracy theories and this one is the biggest of all time who really shot jfk in dallas texas. You've got great cast big names great script plus direction from Oliver Stone. So if u believe that jfk was assassinated over Vietnam by the cia or not the movie still is criping 30 years later
.
.
Alison Pink (7 KP) rated Divine Justice (Camel Club, #4) in Books
Jan 15, 2018
I am a huge Baldacci fan thanks to a great friend's introduction to his work! I have found myself particularly sucked in to the Camel Club series and #4 did not disappoint. In fact, I think this has been my favorite of the series thus far...of course I feel like I say that every time I read one of his books.
This installment of the series picks up right where the 3rd book ended. Oliver Stone finds himself breaking the water's surface after having tossed his scoped sniper rifle & then himself off of a rocky cliff after killing one of America's higher ups. He bails on the Camel Club & splits out of D.C. with no clues as to where he is heading. He eventually finds himself in a small, coal mining, mountain town called Divine, Virginia.
From there, & as usual, Stone finds himself mixed up in a corrupt supermax prison scandel & surrounded by a lethal drug ring, with most of the small town's residents blissfully unaware. You would think he was in over his head, but when one of your best friends is a Secret Service agent & you yourself are a former government assasin, I don't think you could ever be in over your head. I do have to admit that there were points in the story that I was convinced that Stone was finished. He was in some very precarious situations, unlike ones he'd been put into before. Of coure I did also know that there were more books in the series, which did ruin a little bit of the suspense. I mean, what would the Camel Club be without Oliver Stone?
This installment of the series picks up right where the 3rd book ended. Oliver Stone finds himself breaking the water's surface after having tossed his scoped sniper rifle & then himself off of a rocky cliff after killing one of America's higher ups. He bails on the Camel Club & splits out of D.C. with no clues as to where he is heading. He eventually finds himself in a small, coal mining, mountain town called Divine, Virginia.
From there, & as usual, Stone finds himself mixed up in a corrupt supermax prison scandel & surrounded by a lethal drug ring, with most of the small town's residents blissfully unaware. You would think he was in over his head, but when one of your best friends is a Secret Service agent & you yourself are a former government assasin, I don't think you could ever be in over your head. I do have to admit that there were points in the story that I was convinced that Stone was finished. He was in some very precarious situations, unlike ones he'd been put into before. Of coure I did also know that there were more books in the series, which did ruin a little bit of the suspense. I mean, what would the Camel Club be without Oliver Stone?
Alison Pink (7 KP) rated The Camel Club (Camel Club, #1) in Books
Jan 15, 2018
Baldacci does it again! If I wasn't already, I am now officially hooked on his books.
This particular book is the first in a series about the Camel Club. A group of rag-tag misfits who are hell bent on proving conspiracies within the US government. What's not to like about that!? Of course they all have "checkered" pasts that seamlessly weave into the premise of the book.
I do have to say that I gave this book only 4 out of 5 stars because it took me about a 100 pages before I truly got into the story. Once I was fully entrenched however the action was take my breath away GREAT!
I can't wait to get started on the next installment! I look forward to seeing what is in store for Oliver Stone, Alex Ford, & the rest of the crew this time around.
This particular book is the first in a series about the Camel Club. A group of rag-tag misfits who are hell bent on proving conspiracies within the US government. What's not to like about that!? Of course they all have "checkered" pasts that seamlessly weave into the premise of the book.
I do have to say that I gave this book only 4 out of 5 stars because it took me about a 100 pages before I truly got into the story. Once I was fully entrenched however the action was take my breath away GREAT!
I can't wait to get started on the next installment! I look forward to seeing what is in store for Oliver Stone, Alex Ford, & the rest of the crew this time around.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated JFK (1991) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
A gripping and highly complex drama/thriller based around the true and supposed events surrounding the assassination of JFK. This film passionately presents in argument that he was assassinated by members of his own government, and whist on paper Oliver Stone is saying such, the film spins a complex web of theories and conclusions that suggest and dismiss and reignite themselves, leaving a whole host of culprits.
But second shooter, Bell Helicopter, or Johnson’s coup or not, this film demonstrates the power politics meeting celluloid, dazzling its audience with such a plausible argument, and presenting it with such zeal that by the time you take a breath, you’re not sure what to believe, and often opt for the easy choice, taking on board the smoke and mirrors.
But when all is said and done, this is just a movie, and like the books it is based upon, not fact, just theory. But as a film, this is powerful and persuasive stuff…
But second shooter, Bell Helicopter, or Johnson’s coup or not, this film demonstrates the power politics meeting celluloid, dazzling its audience with such a plausible argument, and presenting it with such zeal that by the time you take a breath, you’re not sure what to believe, and often opt for the easy choice, taking on board the smoke and mirrors.
But when all is said and done, this is just a movie, and like the books it is based upon, not fact, just theory. But as a film, this is powerful and persuasive stuff…
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Scarface (1983) in Movies
Feb 7, 2019
Say hello to a modern classic!
Brian DePalma has had an interesting career making some truly classic films and a lot of real crap. Obviously, this film is the former and is probably his best work.
A role written for Al Pacino by Oliver Stone, the story is a basic one I suppose, the rise of a Cuban drug lord. The old replaced by the new. Gruesome violence (a lot of which isn't actually seen, but heard and implied).
The film still holds up as a tour de force performance by Pacino and an epic drug gangster film that has not been equaled.
The cinematography and beautiful look of the film is also interesting in that it seems to capture the locale well even though they only filmed in south Florida for a few weeks (the locals heard about the making of the film and decided they didn't like the idea of it before even seeing).
One of my all time favorites!
A role written for Al Pacino by Oliver Stone, the story is a basic one I suppose, the rise of a Cuban drug lord. The old replaced by the new. Gruesome violence (a lot of which isn't actually seen, but heard and implied).
The film still holds up as a tour de force performance by Pacino and an epic drug gangster film that has not been equaled.
The cinematography and beautiful look of the film is also interesting in that it seems to capture the locale well even though they only filmed in south Florida for a few weeks (the locals heard about the making of the film and decided they didn't like the idea of it before even seeing).
One of my all time favorites!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Battle of Algiers (1966) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
This film-maker was unknown to me entirely before I decided to watch this film. In fact, I had only heard of the film itself quite recently from seeing it mentioned as one of the best films in the genre as a commentary on political insurgency and civil unrest. It is so well regarded that even the US military used it to prepare troops for entering Iraq. The main actors are largely unknown and many of the supporting cast and extras are not actors at all. The camera is allowed to wander and wobble, and such is the feel of random chaos at times you’d be forgiven for thinking this was a documentary. Nominated for 3 Oscars, and faultless in achieving its goal of humanising both sides of an argument, you can see the influence on Oliver Stone and Paul Greengrass, to name but two better known directors with a political edge.
It’s not a film I would feel the need to go back to, unless demonstrating to someone how to make something staged feel entirely real. I admire this film very much, but wouldn’t exactly call it entertaining or even rewarding as a story. Its purpose is to reinforce the tragedy of a people facing oppression and to realise the lengths both sides will go to in protecting their ideals and relative freedoms. The excellent hand held photography and score by the always inspirational Ennio Moricone are other reasons to watch it. As a history lesson of North Africa post WWII it also has a lot to offer.
It’s not a film I would feel the need to go back to, unless demonstrating to someone how to make something staged feel entirely real. I admire this film very much, but wouldn’t exactly call it entertaining or even rewarding as a story. Its purpose is to reinforce the tragedy of a people facing oppression and to realise the lengths both sides will go to in protecting their ideals and relative freedoms. The excellent hand held photography and score by the always inspirational Ennio Moricone are other reasons to watch it. As a history lesson of North Africa post WWII it also has a lot to offer.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Wall Street (1987) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
When looking to review a film like this, there are two distinct points of view to take in to a account:
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
The first being the contemporary context. That being that this was made in 1987, at the height of the Wall Street boom and that, at the time, this must have been a revelation for so many people, who still had either faith or ignorance about the financial institutions which had metamorphosed into the corrupt capitalist cancer which we all know today.
The later half of the 80’s was to herald the fall of the Gordon Gecco’s and this film, whilst reflecting its time, was also ushering in an era of doom for Wall Street, as well as the continuing propagation of this corruption which would lead to the 2008 crash which are still reeling from today.
So given that like so many films which have essentially whistle blown in there own time, Psycho (1960) also springs to mind, the impact is lessened by thirty years of dilution, in which case it would be unfair to judge the film harshly on the fact that it does not really tell us anything new today.
But when it comes to judging how well the film was made, that is surly timeless.
And considering that Oliver Stone put this together, I was disappointed. The characters where not only dislikable, which I am sure was intentional, they were also poorly written. People just come and go throughout and with the exceptions of Michael Douglas’ Gorden Gecco, Charlie Sheen’s Bud Fox and his real life father, Martin Sheen as Bud’s blue collar dad, the rest of the cast seemed to be wasted.
The plot was all over the place, inconstant and littered with goofs and continuity errors right from the get-go. In fact, it only took a few minutes before I was aghast that a film which begins in 1985 made a reference to Gecco’s ruthlessness by stating that he made money out of the Challenger disaster, which did not occur until January 1986!
Charlie Sheen’s character is difficult to sympathise with, not only because he is trying to be the villain, yet of course he finds his soul by the end, but that he is so utterly naive that it is beyond belief!
It is never clear how much money is being made, who has what or what the real gains or losses are by the end, to the point that whist it is implied that Sheen will be jailed for his insider trading, the film ends before he enters the court and Gecco, who has been recorded by Sheen confessing to his involvement, is never resolved at all!
By the end I was really annoyed by how shallow and lackadaisical the script was, seemingly only really interested in showing the power hungry greed of Wall Street traders at this time.
“Greed is good”.
Well, Mr Stone, so is some exposition.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.