Search
Search results
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Qwixx in Tabletop Games
Aug 12, 2020
Roll-and-write games have made quite a resurgence lately, and I love it! When I was a younger man I used to enjoy Yahtzee and, though not a roll-and-write but kinda similar, Phase 10. But since my own transcendence into mature adulthood and gamerhood, simpler games just don’t cut it for me anymore. I really don’t consider myself an “elitist gamer,” but I just don’t draw enjoyment from some of the more pioneer games. So how did I get on with Qwixx? Let’s see.
The object of Qwixx is to be the player who earns the most amount of points at the end of the game. Simple. The game can end at any time in the future, so it is a furious scramble for points on each player’s turn.
To setup, hand each player a score sheet and a writing utensil (not included). Roll off to determine starting player. You are now ready to play Qwixx.
On the active player’s turn, they will roll all available dice. The player will add up the numbers rolled on the two white dice and announce to the table the sum. Using this summed number, all players (including the other non-active players) may cross off this result in any row upon their score sheet. Then the active player may add the result of ONE of the white dice to any of the other-colored dice results to use for their own score sheet. So the active player has the opportunity to cross off two numbers on their score sheet on their turn.
You see, to earn endgame points players are attempting to cross off as many numbers on their score sheets as possible. The caveat follows, however, that once a number has been crossed off within a row a player may NOT cross off any lower numbers than the highest number crossed off. Example: if I were to first cross off a 4 in the red row, I may never cross off 1, 2, or 3 of red in the future. Those options are now lost to me.
Caveat ludio! Players beware! At any time a player can “lock” a color row and remove that color die from the game. This can be done by crossing off the 12 box on the sheet. The prerequisite for this action is to have five boxes crossed off in that row. Also, should a player be unable to cross off a number on their turn, they must cross off one of the penalty boxes on their sheet for a loss of 5 points at endgame. The game ends when a player has crossed off all of their penalty boxes or players have locked the second colored row.
Components. This game is a few dice and a pad of score sheets. The dice are of normal d6 quality. The score sheets are fine, but if you really love this game, you might think about laminating some and keeping some small dry/erase markers in the box. The magnetic flip box is the coolest component of this game and you don’t really use it for anything other than storage!
So here are my thoughts on Qwixx. It is not the most exciting game. It is also not a bad game at all. It is a solid filler that can be played while carrying on a conversation (if you feel you can actually chat and math simultaneously). I don’t think I will suggest it be played too often, but if I am jonesin’ for a quick roll-and-write with a couple other people, or if I have a large game day scheduled, I will throw it in one of my bags. I am not alone on this assessment as you can see from our scores, and for these reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Qwixx a midline 16 / 24. I think you can easily find this at Target or the like for a reasonable price, if this sounds interesting to you.
The object of Qwixx is to be the player who earns the most amount of points at the end of the game. Simple. The game can end at any time in the future, so it is a furious scramble for points on each player’s turn.
To setup, hand each player a score sheet and a writing utensil (not included). Roll off to determine starting player. You are now ready to play Qwixx.
On the active player’s turn, they will roll all available dice. The player will add up the numbers rolled on the two white dice and announce to the table the sum. Using this summed number, all players (including the other non-active players) may cross off this result in any row upon their score sheet. Then the active player may add the result of ONE of the white dice to any of the other-colored dice results to use for their own score sheet. So the active player has the opportunity to cross off two numbers on their score sheet on their turn.
You see, to earn endgame points players are attempting to cross off as many numbers on their score sheets as possible. The caveat follows, however, that once a number has been crossed off within a row a player may NOT cross off any lower numbers than the highest number crossed off. Example: if I were to first cross off a 4 in the red row, I may never cross off 1, 2, or 3 of red in the future. Those options are now lost to me.
Caveat ludio! Players beware! At any time a player can “lock” a color row and remove that color die from the game. This can be done by crossing off the 12 box on the sheet. The prerequisite for this action is to have five boxes crossed off in that row. Also, should a player be unable to cross off a number on their turn, they must cross off one of the penalty boxes on their sheet for a loss of 5 points at endgame. The game ends when a player has crossed off all of their penalty boxes or players have locked the second colored row.
Components. This game is a few dice and a pad of score sheets. The dice are of normal d6 quality. The score sheets are fine, but if you really love this game, you might think about laminating some and keeping some small dry/erase markers in the box. The magnetic flip box is the coolest component of this game and you don’t really use it for anything other than storage!
So here are my thoughts on Qwixx. It is not the most exciting game. It is also not a bad game at all. It is a solid filler that can be played while carrying on a conversation (if you feel you can actually chat and math simultaneously). I don’t think I will suggest it be played too often, but if I am jonesin’ for a quick roll-and-write with a couple other people, or if I have a large game day scheduled, I will throw it in one of my bags. I am not alone on this assessment as you can see from our scores, and for these reasons Purple Phoenix Games gives Qwixx a midline 16 / 24. I think you can easily find this at Target or the like for a reasonable price, if this sounds interesting to you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live Free or Die Hard (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Computers have become such a mainstay of modern life that few of us even stop to imagine just how much of our lives are affected by them. In the course of a standard day, everything from the lights at the corner, offices, banks, and even the cars we drive are all governed in some ways by computers.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
In the latest chapter in the Die Hard series, “Live Free or Die Hard”, audiences are given a glimpse of what could happen should a massive attack on our nation’s computer network occur, and shown how life as we know it could be severely altered without our digital creations monitoring the numerous tasks to which they have been assigned.
For Detective John McClane, (Bruce Willis), being in the wrong place at the right time has become par for the course, when his routine transportation of a suspected hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long), soon has him in a heated shootout, he realizes this is not going to be just another day at the office.
The nations computer network has come under attack by a cyber terrorist named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), and in short order everything has shut down, and the cities of the country are in total chaos.
Since the bad guys have been so intent on silencing Matt, John becomes his guardian as the two try to unravel the master plan behind the attacks, and stay one step ahead of the legion of hired goons.
This is no easy task as seemingly every step of the way the duo are under attack from all fronts from an unseen enemy that can strike anywhere, and often without warning which results in some truly inspired and impressive action sequences.
In a race against time, old school cop McClane must rely on the tech fluent Matt as he once again finds himself the only man who can save the day before the world as we know it is lost.
This “Die Hard” is a real treat as it is the rare summer offering that not only lives up to the hype and promise, but surpasses it. Willis reportedly waited to find the write script and director (Len Wiseman of the “Underworld” films); to bring the next chapter to the series and it is a dynamic and effective pairing.
Wiseman is a fan of the series and as a teen was influenced by the earlier films in the series. His love and understanding of the characters and subject matter is clear as he stages very clever and entertaining action sequences that while thrilling, never take the place of the human elements of the film.
The film is clearly about McClane and his reluctant heroics as he laments that being a hero is not all that it is cracked up to be, and the aftermath of such actions often make for a life filled with baggage.
Willis is in top form, as he comfortably steps back into the familiar role and throws himself physically into a very demanding role, where he insisted upon doing the majority of his stunt work. His gritty approach to the character pays off, as McClane is not some super-powered character; he is a normal man, with faults who is driven to do his part when needed.
The film does take a brief pause about 80 minutes into the nearly two hour run time to expand on some of the characters and the plot, but ramps up for an amazing finale that has some of the best action and stunt work in recent memory.
It was reported that Wiseman kept CGI effects to a minimum for many sequences in order to give them a more realistic look, and in doing so, has crafted a true gem.
Some people have complained about the film being “toned down” to PG-13 but I can tell you that there is just as much action, violence, and body count as any film in the series; they were just not overly gratuitous with the use of blood. That being said, at no point did I get the impression I was watching a sanitized film, I was too busy enjoying a solid action film that takes the audience on one hell of a thrilling ride.
NT
Now Then Pro - Time Tracker and Timesheet Management
Productivity and Business
App
Use Now Then to record what you’re doing as you do it, and discover where your time really goes. ...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Storm Shield
Weather and Travel
App
Named by Time.com's @Techland as one of the best weather apps for your iPhone. And now the first app...
Easy Release - Model Release App
Photo & Video and Business
1.0
Rate It
App
► NEW: iCloud-Drive, Sync and Save PDF to Dropbox ◄ ► Multi-Page Releases - New In-App...
Localscope - Find places and people around you
Navigation and Travel
App
Location Browser for your iPhone Localscope is a window to your world that lets you explore your...
WB
Whisperin' Bill Anderson: An Unprecedented Life in Country Music
Bill Anderson and Peter Cooper
Book
Whisperin' Bill: An Unprecedented Life in Country Music presents a revealing portrait of Bill...
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.