Savages

I got a kick out of reading the popular Hated It reviews about Savages. It's all very funny. It's the same with some other films that Oliver Stone made in recent years. But is Savages really that bad? In my opinion it's not that bad. It's a fine film actually. But its flaws can be irritating. When I began watching the film I wondered if I turned on a dirty movie. But no. That was just Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and Ophelia (Blake Lively) having their special time. Maybe it's not that special because later Ophelia has the same time with Ben (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). I hope Stone included these scenes just to show that these three are very close. Fine. A little later though viewers are treated to what passes as a commercial promoting the use of marijuana. Fine. The three lead actors show little range throughout the film. But I didn't think that this was a problem because it keeps the film entertaining instead of too dramatic. It's entertaining but it's not easy to watch sometimes. It's a simplified, glossy, watered-down and often violent representation of the War on Drugs and Mexican drug dealing. The Mexican Drug War is still ongoing and several dozen thousand people have been killed because of it. For anyone who doesn't know I'll mention that the war is just a result of America's economic policies. So-called free trade drove millions of Mexicans out of work and into poverty and crime. On the other side of the world, in Afghanistan, the Americans and the British have deliberately increased opium production for export to neighboring countries, especially to Russia. Genocide as a result of drug use and drug trafficking is an old British trick that goes back centuries. It's an interesting topic but I don't pay much attention to it. Savages is kind of a peek inside, though it doesn't get into the seriousness of the issue. Even if Kitsch, Johnson, and Lively aren't sympathetic leads the film still has memorable performances from Salma Hayek, Benicio del Toro and John Travolta. The screenplay by Shane Salerno, Don Winslow and Stone can be considered a cheat. It doesn't just raise a question mark at the very beginning of the film, which I didn't like. It also tarnishes the ending. I would have just preferred the upbeat version without the downbeat version. But, like I mentioned, it's an entertaining film that does have something to say. Its running time is a little over two hours, however the time goes by fast. For me Savages turned out to be an engaging film. Dan Mindel's appealing cinematography is a benefit too. I didn't think that I'd like it when I saw the trailer, but it's a well-directed crime thriller. I recommend it.

"I have orgasms, he has wargasms" oh my oh my, what was Oliver Stone thinking?

It's definitely watchable but it's just about 30-40 minutes too long, really drags its heels in the second half.

This was not a great movie. It could have been a great movie, but it was let down in two major ways.

First off, two of the three lead characters are awful. Blake Lively makes for good eye candy, but she just isn't a good actress. She's not bad in smaller supporting roles (like her part in The Town), but she simply cannot carry a lead. Unfortunately the entire film basically revolves around her (and she narrates), so her shortcomings are brought front and center. Every time her voice-over came on, I cringed. It really was not a good choice.

Taylor Kitsch is no better. Again... good eye candy, poor acting. Very poor acting. He just has no soul, and brings absolutely nothing to his character whatsoever. He should be in a brainless Fast & Furious movie playing opposite Vin Diesel, not an Oliver Stone drama.

The second major failure of this film is even more serious, and that is the story structure. We are never really given the opportunity to understand why the three lead characters (Chon, Ben and Ophelia) have such strong feelings for each other. We're told that they do, but never given any real reason to believe it. This is extremely important, because literally the entire premise of the film hangs on their relationship. If you're going to build a dramatic story around an unorthodox three- way relationship, you had better explain in more than one quick scene exactly how this relationship happened, otherwise the audience won't know why they should care about the characters. Especially when the actors portraying these characters aren't very good to begin with.

I know that I kept asking myself why these two guys share a girl, how they have absolutely zero jealousy, why they never once thought of double-crossing each other, and why either of them care so deeply for her -- to the point of being willing to risk their lives and commit horrible atrocities to save her. Where did all this love and loyalty come from? It was never adequately explained, and the entire movie suffers tremendously for it.

On a slightly more positive note, the veteran actors did a fine job. Benicio Del Toro was wonderful as a psychotic cartel underboss, John Travolta chewed the scenery to bits, and Salma Hayek was entirely believable in her role as well. Unfortunately, their competence only served to underscore the incompetence of the younger leads. It's telling that the best scene in the entire film was between Del Toro and Travolta, with none of the three lead actors anywhere to be found, and hinted at the promise this movie squandered.

A lot of reviews took issue with the violence portrayed in the film, but I didn't have a problem with that. You really can't make a movie about Mexican drug cartels without violence, so I didn't feel it was gratuitous. Unfortunately, however, it also didn't make the movie any more believable from a plot perspective.

Overall, I just don't think this was a very good film. I don't think that Stone felt entirely comfortable with what he was doing here, trying at times to be Tarantino but failing miserably. And likewise, I think that if this film had been in the hands of Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez, it likely would have come out much better, perhaps even great.

It was OK enough---it was definitely well directed--but the film would've benefited a lot from three better actors in the central roles. Don't get me wrong--its not that Taylor Kitch or Aaron Johnson aren't decent enough--both play their roles with exactly the same kind of stiffness that i guess suit their characters' circumstance but neither really add anything beyond what the screenplay has already provided them.. like if this were made say 10-15 years ago and you'd of had Steve Zhan and Ben Affleck in it i'm not saying it would've been batter but the two of them would've made you care for what might happen to the main characters a bit more i feel like. I'd rather not get into the lack of any kind of convincing emoting from Blake Lively here--- (She's supposed to be afraid for her life here--and somehow its like she's barely miffed---its as if instead of her life that's being threatened its her wi-fi connection.) having read the book this was based on--the character O in the story was a lot more resourceful and a lot more crazy then Blake Lively ever suggests in the two hours of running time---would that they had cast literally anybody else in her part,just off the top of my head would Lauren Ambrose from six feet under have been considered too old??? would Krysten Ritter??? would Kirsten Bell?? hell Alexis Bidel might of been able to pull this off better (and as much as i love Rory Gilmore emoting was never exactly her strong suit) at least Blake Lively's narrating was OK...i just really wish they could've found someone who could have really put this movie over the top here. God again if this was made like 10-15 years ago--imagine what a younger Juliette Lewis or a younger Illeana Douglas could've done with this.

That's really all i actually wanted to say cause everything else was fine enough--i was kind of expecting it to be more over the top if anything given that its Oliver St one's first crime film in a little while but its definitely over the top enough to satisfy anyone looking for an over the top crime movie. Its good enough that it overcomes the somewhat major obstacles in its path to keep you watching and keep you entertained but again with a little different casting--this could of been first rate.

There are many bad things about this movie, but let's list the good things first. The plot makes sense, kind of. It's nicely shot, and the beach looked pretty. And... I guess John Travolta looked as though he was having fun? Which is more than I could say for the poor buggers who had to sit through this mess.

Your two leads, ladies and gentlemen, are Aaron Johnson, last seen being upstaged by a preteen girl, and Taylor Kitsch, who Hollywood keeps casting as the lead in blockbusters which then tank spectacularly at the box office. You know why that is, Hollywood? It's because Taylor Kitsch has no charisma. None. The furniture was more interesting than he was, and had more emotional range. Even he's better than Johnson, a black hole of tedium from which nothing interesting can escape. These are two of the blandest leads I've ever seen, and I've seen movies that starred rappers.

But dear God in heaven, they are much, much better than Blake Lively. I haven't seen much else of her acting, so I can only think she can do much better than this. But here she's playing a 30-year-old ingénue, a woman-child who knows Shakespeare but doesn't know what 'savages' means. She's meant to be sexy and alluring, but she comes across as so boundlessly stupid that no man could seriously find her attractive. I don't think that's her fault, but the no-nudity clause that made the sex scenes in this movie so absurd? Yeah, that was her fault.

Even that isn't the worst. There's still... that voice-over. The narration that infests this whole movie, but especially the early scenes, is some of the worst writing I've ever heard. 'I had orgasms, he had wargasms' is a phrase that will live with me until I die. And now, even if you haven't seen the movie, it'll haunt your nightmares, too. You're welcome.