Tag Archives: Taylor Kitsch

Lone Survivor

Spoiler Alert! The title of this movie is Lone Survivor.

Despite that big giveaway, Lone Survivor is a pretty good war movie. Set in 2005 in Afghanistan, the film is based on true events.

Four Navy SEALs are sent to check out a village where a Taliban leader is believed to be hiding out. The frogmen (who do this mission on dry land) are Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Dietz (Emile Hirsch) and Axe (Ben Foster).

After being ‘coptered in and dropped off, they scoot across a mountaintop and begin to monitor the village below. Their communications gear fails and they cannot make contact with their base commander (Eric Bana).

So they wait. Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, up walks a group of locals with a herd of goats. They are unarmed. Do the SEALs kill them, tie them up or let them go on their way? Alas, they choose the last option, which soon leads to a confrontation with Taliban fighters.

The SEALs engage in a firefight that is fierce and brutal. The battle is on a hillside and the four Americans take some tough falls down the inclines. Being outnumbered by a large margin, all except Luttrell are eventually taken down. With help from a group of locals who are anti-Taliban he makes it out alive.

Lone Survivor is not a political film. It does not judge American involvement in the region. The men who fight are fighting for their county, yes, but also for one another.

I read Jon Krakauer’s excellent book Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman last year. It described a mission in Afghanistan with bad planning, communication snafus and clumsy execution not unlike this one. The two tales do not inspire great faith in our military.

They do, however, generate appreciation for the men who fight. Stick around for the sequence at the end of the film which offers a salute to the real life fighting men.

Leave a comment

Savages

Good and evil—sometimes the lines get blurred.

Two good-looking guys who are big buds also grow big buds. In fact, their pot is so potent that a Mexican drug gang wants to distribute their product. The two men, played by Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson, are such good friends that they share a gorgeous blonde girlfriend, played by Blake Lively.

These two drug dealers are the apparent good guys. Sure, they are committing felonies on a daily basis, but they are also sending money to Africa and Asia to help poor kids and they provide their killer weed to a crooked DEA agent (played by John Travolta) whose wife who is in pain, dying from cancer.

Then you have the Mexicans who are the apparent bad guys. The Mexicans include Benicio Del Toro and Salma Hayek. We are introduced to them via a gruesome decapitation video. They torture people, they shoot people, they kidnap people. Worst of all, they refuse to negotiate. Their offer to our “good guys” is a “take it or leave it.” When the good guys leave it, the bad guys kidnap the blonde.

That’s when things get really ugly. That’s when good goes bad. That’s when bad, well, doesn’t exactly go good, but shows some human emotion.

Director Oliver Stone’s depictions of violence are direct: sadistic, brutal, and bloody. And they are more realistic that the stylized scenes of violence in a Tarentino film.

In “Savages,” the story we see and the changes the characters undergo are really more important than the film’s ultimate conclusion. If you like a good action film and can handle some violence and gore, take a deep hit of “Savages,” get Oliver Stoned and enjoy the buzz.

Leave a comment

John Carter—\Meh\

Disney spent a ridiculous amount of money on the production and marketing of “John Carter.” Sorry to respond with general indifference. This movie is not horrible, but it reeks of ordinariness.

The things I like about “John Carter”:

  1. The flying machines. Their “steampunk” era design fascinated me. They don’t look like they would be airworthy, but they do look really cool.
  2. The domestic pet creatures on Barsoom (Mars). They have faces and bodies like Jabba the Hutt, but they are extremely fast. They act like dogs, even if they don’t look quite like them.
  3. The language difficulties that result in John Carter repeatedly being called “Virginia.” (Silly, but mildly amusing.)

Things I do not like about “John Carter”:

  1. A lack of charisma by the title character. I had a hard time really caring about him. Not that Taylor Kitsch is a bad actor, but the engagement was not there.
  2. The creatures on Barsoom that are a cross between the Na’vi in “Avatar” and JarJar Binks. The best word to describe them is “derivative.”
  3. A setting and CGI effects that repeatedly make me think of the three recent “Star Wars” movies (Episodes I, II and III).
  4. Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris as the movie’s designated “babe” is gorgeous, but brings nothing new to the table.
  5. 3-D. Yes, there are a handful of scenes that are enhanced by 3-D, but overall it’s not necessary. (Except to add to box office figures.)

For a movie that had such a huge budget, one would expect something special. For a movie that Disney apparently wants to turn into a franchise, one would expect something mind-blowing.

Expectations are not met with “John Carter.”

11 Comments