Savages (2012)

Title: Savages

Release Date: July 6th, 2012

Director: Oliver Stone

Writer:  Don Winslow (book), Salerno/Stone(screenplay)

Starring: Aaron Johnson, Blake Lively, Benicio del Toro

Genre: Crime, Drama, Thriller

        

                    Well, to be honest, I watched 'Natural Born Killers' (which I have to review soon) a few weeks ago, so I went into this with expectations. And, it's not that it didn't deliver, per say, it was just, lost. Yeah, I'll call it lost. It was a great movie, in the box office sense of the word. Awesome visuals, a star-studded cast, and a decent soundtrack. Now, saying that, it just kind of lacked soul. Like, when the movie was over, it was OVER. There was no feeling left behind. Nothing. 

                   But, if you're looking for a simpler review of 'Savages', I'll give you this: It's pretty cool. It is definitely worth a watch, there were no scenes where I was let down and it was jam packed with action-y action. It's an exciting movie that won't necessarily keep you "on the edge of your seat", but you won't be bored. 

                   In the end, 'Savages' is kind of just another 'drug-cartel-mobster' movie. It's got some new ideas and some cool outlooks, but in a few years, it'll just be another action movie playing on Spike. 'Savages' is an attractive movie, with beautiful people, filmed in beautiful places, with some violence periodically thrown in. If you're into that, which most people are, give it a whirl. I expect a little more grit from an Oliver Stone film, but on a "main-stream" level, I believe he fit in a good amount of 'grit'.

I give it a 7.5 out of 10 stars.

The Woman in Black (2012)

Title: The Woman in Black

Release Date: February 3rd, 2012

Director: James Watkins

Writer: Susan Hill (book), Jane Goldman (screenplay)

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer

Genre: Horror, Drama, Thriller

                      This is the first movie review that I'm doing where I've seen the movie in theaters. To be completely honest, I would definitely need to see it a second time, with less distractions, to really get the full effect. But maybe I will later and I'll add an edit. 

        

                     Okay, so this movie was okay. It wasn't as bad as everyone was complaining about, but it wasn't like, horror movie of the year. Things I liked? I was pleasantly surprised by Radcliffe's transition from Harry Potter. I mean I still spent most the movie making Harry Potter references, but still, it was a good choice for him to start the jump with a period piece that is nothing like the Potter movies. His acting was a bit dull, like at times when he should be visibly terrified, it kind of looked like he was bored? But he definitely dove into the role and took risks that made up for his lack of facial emotions. I also loved the setting. They had this incredible stone house that sat on this island surrounded by marshes, and could only be reached between tide rising. I feel like that was something audiences had never seen and really added dimension to it. 

                    Now, what really killed me (in a bad way), was that they had these insanely great lead ups with like violin music getting louder, and tension rising and then BAM! Nothing happened. The movie had no sense of timing. I kind of liked seeing it in theaters only because you could feel everyone full of that tension, waiting, waiting, then like "oh, uhh, okay?" and it was so anti-climatic it ruined it for me. I also feel that there were unnecessary scenes that were just tossed in to add more of a scare factor. Like "Oh we've gone 10 minutes without of scare, lets throw a screaming dead kid in there." The whole thing felt a little too overdone. I kept feeling this was a run on from like, Insidious or Sixth Sense or something, the whole lady in the back round of every photograph thing.  The whole thing felt pretty flat, like I was watching the same scene over and over again. 

               The acting was good, and I liked the casting and the whole "Wicker Man" type feel, I just felt this would have been wayyyyy better if they had focused more on plot instead of badly timed cheap-thrills. I mean if you enjoy horror, this is definitely worth a watch, it's got a good story line and great writing, it just felt a little unfinished.

I give this a 5 out of 10 stars.

Constantine (2005)

Title: Constantine

Release Date: February 18th, 2005

Director: Francis Lawrence

Writer: Delano, Ennis (Comic), Capello (screenplay) 

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Shia LeBeouf, Rachel Weisz

Genre: Horror, Drama

Warning: This review is going to be pretty biased, because I love this movie. No lie, I've probably seen it 10+ times. Everything about this movie is just great. Obviously, it's not like a world-renowned, award winning film, but for it's genre, this movie is beautiful.

Let's start with why it's a good movie. Well, uh, Keanu Reeves is kind of the greatest. He's got the self-deprieciating, self-loathing, but still in a weird way confident charm. This role fits him like a glove. Now, I might have gone with a different female lead, but Weisz is still good, just the two of them together is awkward at times. The graphics are like straight out of a comic-book, so freaking great. Tilda Swinton as Gabriel is epic. Like I honestly feel like they were taking a leap of faith (pun intended) with casting her as him, but it worked out well. That was probably one of the most interesting characters in the film. Oh, and Peter Stormare as Satan? Gahhhh, such perfect casting. I love Stormare and his accent with that character was golden.

My only problem with the cast? They didn't get nearly enough screen time! I would have loved to learn more about characters like Papa Midnite (Djimon Hounsou) and Chaz Kramer (Lebeouf). It would've added a lot of dimension to the whole Constantine Universe.

Really I think what made this movie great was the translation from page to film. I have never read Hellblazer (comic it was based off of), but honestly the way they presented each scene was like a comic book. It's theme was consistent and it had this great dark-comedic quality. Reeves had a ton of good (both funny and serious) one liners and dialogue that were not only memorable but pushed the story forward at a good. 

All I can say is that every time I see it, it gets better. This is one of those movies that even though it was made like 7 years ago, it's still a good watch; graphics, story, acting and all. To be completely honest, I'm still holding out for a sequel, even if I have to write and direct it in my backyard.

I give this a 8.9 out of 10 stars.

Straw Dogs (2011)

Title: Straw Dogs

Release Date: September 16, 2011

Director: Rod Lurie

Writer: Rod Lurie (based on novel by Gordon Williams)

Starring: James Marsden, Alexander Skarsgard

Genre: Thriller

Let's begin with that this in fact is a "remake" of the 1971 movie of the same title. I haven't seen the original so thats pretty much the extent of comparing I'll do between the two. All I know is that it's pretty much the same circumstances, just a different setting and time.

Okay, well, filming wise, this movie was surprisingly sharp. They definitely made some of the most vulgar/off-putting scenes, into well put together,semi enjoyable scenes. Also, it had this greenish tint to it that really made it very down-and-dirty southern type thing (set in marshlands of Mississippi).

The acting was kind of great.  Alexander Skarsgard did a amazing job playing the charming, southern guy; and Kate Bosworth and James Marsden had an obvious relaxed chemistry that made their on screen relationship believable. The script was dark and very real, I had no trouble imagining many of the conversations in real life.

One thing I didn't enjoy about this movie was the actual progression of the plot. It started steady and had a good sort of suspicious air about it, but I honestly felt there was no real climax. While I know where in the movie the climax is (or was supposed to be), I felt it fell flat. It was like winding up a jack in the box and then instead of letting it 'pop!' out super quick, it was like the top slowly opened and you could see the whole story unfold very slowly and predictably. The other thing is at times I got the feeling they were trying to relate this too much to the original. I haven't seen the 1971 'Straw Dogs', so I might be wrong, but it was just a feeling.

I think what really saved this movie, at least for me, was the realness of every scene. The characters and the scenes were raw, and to be completely honest, I think that's a hard thing to find in many of the big budget motion pictures. What killed it was that it wasn't as 'memorable' per say as I would've hoped.

I give this a 6.5 out of 10 stars.