Search
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky thrill-ride of a movie, this is sure to be the ticket!
Edgar Wright’s Baby Driver is a pulse-pounding, jukebox-jamming blast! In this wildly entertaining crime thriller, a young man called Baby is the perennial pedal-pushing getaway driver for an Atlanta crime boss known as Doc. The two of them have worked countless jobs together, and in Doc’s mind, Baby is the only one worthy behind the wheel. Unbeknownst to Doc, however, Baby plans to wipe his hands clean and hit the road for good as soon as the opportunity arrives. Tensions steadily rise as this perfect getaway driver tries to find a way out and get away from his life of crime.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
The premise in Baby Driver is a familiar one, although the movie itself is anything but. Sure, it features the cliché of one last job, but the motives here are a bit different and morality is a big focus. I’ll spare the details, but this crime movie has a heart and a conscience, and at its core, it’s really more of a love story, as Baby tries to make a daring dash for freedom all in the name of romance. After meeting a nice girl named Debora at a local diner, Baby has finally found a reason to want to break free from his past so he can live a life of love. With its romantic drive, its high-octane action, and its fresh and funky soundtrack, Baby Driver is an action thriller that would make for a perfect date night movie.
While I did very much enjoy Baby Driver, it did leave a worrisome first impression. One of the earliest scenes verges on the borderline of being a musical, and as well-crafted as the one-take scene may be, it sort of rubbed me the wrong way by making Baby look like a goofball. It was trying too hard to be cool and to me it ended up feeling pretty pretentious. Really what got me engaged in the movie was the film’s stellar supporting cast, led by Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, and Jon Bernthal, all of whom play bank robbers working for Doc. By the time the film’s second robbery rolled around, all else was forgiven, and I was eagerly strapped in for the ride.
The cast in this movie is outstanding. Foxx steals the show in every scene he’s in, playing a violent loose-cannon thug known as Bats. His intensity, wit, and strong distrust of others make Bats a character you won’t want to take your eyes off of. Hamm’s character Buddy is less abrasive, but no less intimidating when he’s angry. I really loved watching his nice guy façade crumble away when things got personal. Ansel Elgort, the teenage heartthrob from The Fault in Our Stars, has enough charm and coolness to make Baby an easy character to root for. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey does a wonderful job balancing the complexity of his character, Doc. Eiza González is lovely and cool as Buddy’s girlfriend Darling, and Jon Bernthal truly makes the most out of his limited screen-time. All in all, I have nothing but praise for the actors as well as their well-written characters.
A big part of what makes Baby Driver so cool is its killer soundtrack, and it’s not just the music, but the way that it’s incorporated into the movie. The music itself is practically a character in the movie, as Baby is always playing songs through his iPod to drown out the ringing in his ears caused by a condition known as tinnitus. It’s used to great effect in terms of both plot and action. The movie’s eclectic music mix features over 40 songs, and much of the action is brilliantly synced up to the beat. The timing really ratchets up the fun factor and makes for a uniquely wild experience. I don’t know a good half of the songs in the movie, but this diversity helps give Baby Driver an identity of its own, and I look forward to taking the soundtrack for another spin.
Baby Driver is so fresh, fun, and entertaining that you’ve really just got to go see it for yourself. Edgar Wright has really made something special with his upbeat, funky crime thriller. The characters are compelling, the action is superb, and the comedy is hysterical. It’s one of the most laugh-out-loud funny movies of the year, but also full of edge-of-your-seat excitement. The movie builds tension so well, and it rarely takes its foot off the gas. I particularly loved the final act when Baby propels the intensity to new heights by taking charge of his own destiny, bringing forth an exciting and unpredictable turn of events. It puts an exhilarating and frantic twist on what is already a wild movie.
That’s not to say it’s a perfect movie, though. The ending itself left me feeling pretty unsatisfied. It forgoes the predictable ending for something different, and as respectable as that may be, it went on for too long and was a little too hokey and hard to believe for my taste. After riding high on Baby Driver’s adrenaline for so long, the ending botches the film’s momentum by devoting too much time to unnecessary explanation. While I even like the way the story concludes, I wish it could have gotten there a little more smoothly.
Bumpy start and finish aside, I really had a great time Baby Driver. It is an incredibly fun and energetic experience that the whole audience seemed to enjoy. It’s rhythmic, it’s stylish, and it’s not like any other film you’ll see this year. Baby Driver is simply the epitome of cool, and if you’re looking for a fun and frisky ride in theaters this summer, Baby Driver is sure to be the ticket.
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.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 23, 2020
You Won't Find A Better Game In Terms Of Presentation. (4 more)
Level Design Is Astounding.
Like The First Game, This Will Create A Conversation For Years To Come
Sound Design Is Incredible.
Takes Risks, And Some Do Pay Off.
A Flawed Sequel. (4 more)
Awful Pacing.
Structure Of Narrative Is Bad.
Some Terrible Dialogue.
Shoehorned Agenda.
The last of The Last of Us.
The video game industry doesn't get enough credit as a source of entertainment, in my humble opinion. Time and time again, the industry has proven that it can produce something magical, memorable, mesmerising to play, and even more so, something engaging to watch as someone not even holding the controller. Naughty Dog’s 2013 masterpiece, The Last of Us, became an overnight classic game because it was cinematic in presentation, and a rollercoaster of emotions in narrative. I sat and played the remastered version on my PlayStation 4 in 2017, and fell in love with the chemistry, love and heartbreak Joel and Ellie took with them, as they crossed a post-apocalyptic America. I was satisfied with the conclusion, and felt the story of these two characters was finished. I didn't need, or ever want a sequel. Then a few months pass, The Last of Us Part II is announced. Obviously, I was ecstatic, but also concerned. Trailers came and went, delays happened over and over, and leaks began to drip onto the internet. I was even more concerned with the leaks, and how this game was taking shape, but I remained open minded, and began playing the game.
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)
The Last of Us Part II is a strange beast. An ambitious, exquisite experience, mired by multiple flaws in structure, pacing and plot holes. I simultaneously adored and loathed the twenty five hour experience, and I’m ready to do it all again. Ellie’s thirst for revenge deals with many issues of morality and hate, and the consequences of ones actions. To coin a phrase, “violence begets violence”, and this is very violent. A flawed piece of art, that often shoehorns a political tick list so it can cater to a certain demographic of sexuality and gender. Whatever you think about Part II, it will create a conversation for years to come, for better or worse.
Narrative:
Ellie and Joel are settled in Jackson, Wyoming, living a relatively normal existence. Ellie is nineteen, and has a job, like the rest of the fighters in Jackson, by going out into the world on routes to clear out the wondering infected. When Ellie witnesses a violent event, she takes it into her own hands to take bloody revenge on the people responsible.
A big risk was taken by Naughty Dog to decide what they did for the first two hours, even the VP of the company, Neil Druckmann, said himself the game will be “divisive”, and that is probably an understatement judging by the fan backlash. I feel it worked to support the other twenty three hours, and shows the blurry line of being good and bad in this world.
Unfortunately, the narrative slogs through awful structuring and some dreadful, downright cringe-worthy dialogue. The structure goes back and forth from the present day, to months, and sometimes years previous, and this is all to cement the events that keep the narrative flowing. The flashbacks featuring Joel and Ellie give you brief moments of happiness, followed by devastating revelations. They are the best moments of the game, you can feel the warmth the characters have for each other, and the heartbreaking actions they take. It made me wonder why they simply didn't just create a game with these ideas in mind. Other flashbacks create more problems than they solve, particularly in the latter half of the game. The first half, for all its faults, really treats you to a vicious and bloodthirsty ride through Seattle, and you completely feel the motivation and drive Ellie has to complete the mission she's set out to do. Seattle is huge, and the perfect backdrop for this game.
Sadly, the second half of the game is an absolute mess. The whole experience becomes nothing more than “go to this location, collect something, go back” over and over again. Its a lazy trope that causes so much fatigue in terms of pacing, slowing down any momentum gained by the first half. The second half serves the most important purpose too, and while I did grow to understand the intention it was presenting me, I couldn't help but feel frequently bored of doing fetch quests. To remain as spoiler free as possible, the game is split into two perspectives of Ellie, and an entirely new character. Naughty Dog wants you to understand the perspectives of both sides, but the history thats been created with the original game, you cant help but sympathise with Ellie more. The fact that its half the game away from the main protagonist, and starts you fresh with a new character, with new skill sets and weapons, really feels out of place. This could of worked much better as an episodic entry, rather than just two stories, one after the other. I can understand people who love this way of storytelling, but for me it slows the pacing down.
Gameplay:
Part II is the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. Naughty Dog continue to set the bar extremely high in terms of surroundings and facial animations, and the seamless transitions from cutscene to gameplay made my jaw drop. Each facial movement shows the hurt, the honesty, the devastation the characters carry with them. It almost feels more like a film or tv series than a video game, featuring an excellent performance from Troy Baker, and a career defining show from Ashley Johnson. Unfortunately, some of the new cast members don't have enough time on screen to give a full understanding of their personality or perspective. Some are likeable, relatable even, but some are just annoying, saying some of the strangest, out of place dialogue.
In terms of its gameplay, Part II hasn't really changed anything from its predecessor. It feels the same, whether you enjoyed it first time round or not. I personally am in the middle ground, it works for what it is. The Last of Us has always been a game about surviving by any means necessary. Part II feels like multiple ideas all in one, all conflicting themselves. Let me explain:
The game actively tries to twist the act of killing people to make you seem like its an awful thing to do. This is an interesting idea that has been done many times before in games, but it works in the oddest of ways here. I have completed the game twice now, and found it almost impossible to not kill anyone, yet cutscenes display remorse within the characters after they’ve murdered someone. This conflicts the idea of the whole game, where one moment I'm slicing a persons throat with a knife, the next I do the exact same, but this time I regret that decision. Again, its adding less weight to the story, and actively contradicting everything that happens.
Extra Notes:
The environments of Part II are some of the best in a video game. A sandbox of lush greenery and worn down buildings follows the same formula that Naughty Dog designed in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, where you can explore a massive space to do what you find the objectives, but also see the sights and collect items. The level design of the entire game is absolutely masterful, but this level astounded me graphically and structurally.
By this point, it probably feels like I utterly hated Part II. I did, and didn’t, and thats the line I'm sticking on. The Last of Us always presented a commentary as to the nature of relationships, love, life and death. At the core was Ellie and Joel, two wayward strangers forced together on a journey across America. Everyone has a reason to love that game, for me its their chemistry and progression. Joel was hardened, standoffish, only to warm to Ellie, and love her by the end. Ellie, the immune girl who's humorous, optimistic and full of life, who ultimately becomes cold, quiet and sceptical of Joel.
Part II presents a different commentary, one of revenge and hate. I firmly believe Part II is weak in most areas, a downgrade in fact compared to its counterpart, but its so beautiful and bleak, with so many incapsulated moments of joy, heartbreak, love, shock. Its uncompromising, relentless and essential for anyone with a PS4. This will be a game I will constantly change my opinion on the more I think about it. As I said at the beginning, I never felt a sequel was necessary, and I firmly believe the story must end here.
(P.S. I must mention that Naughty Dog and Sony have only themselves to blame when it comes to the reception Part II has received during its release and promotional material. Early reviewers were told that they could only go into detail about the first ten or so hours, not mentioning the other fifteen. The other fifteen hours are incredibly important to mention, and they either make or break this game, so not letting reviewers do their job feels disingenuous, and from my point of view shows that they had no faith in their product to be criticised. The promotional material is also hugely misleading. The trailers show a completely different game, and characters are swapped for others in key scenes. That is wrong, and once again, shows your audience you had zero faith in your product based on the actual plot of your game.)