Salvajes

A brilliant and sensitive movie with interwoven plot lines. As a general warning, the movie turns quite dark about half way through. As sudden as it is, this is a change that I found fitting to the themes of the movie, particularly the comparison of the Ishkanani to the filthy rich, and (as is said by Finn at the end) how each person makes up the tribe, and how the whole tribe is reflected in each person.

Anton Yelchin (Finn Earl) is spectacular in this movie. He is probably best known as Chekov from Star Trek or Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation, but he's been in a whole plethora of movies you've probably never heard of (Alpha Dog, which is another brilliant performance on Yelchin's part, House of D, Hearts in Atlantis, to name a few...) The point is that this kid really takes this movie and makes it his own. Other excellent performances from Diane Lane and Donald Sutherland are what takes this movie up a notch, from great to excellent.

This movie is highly underrated. It isn't mainstream and it isn't predictable, which makes it unique and interesting.

The acting done in this film is raw and believable. Anton Yelchin, Diane Lane, Chris Evans, and Kristen Stewart all do well portraying their characters.

The film is about turning bad things into good fortune and has an interesting sociological plot. It's quirky and at times a bit unbelievable, but that's why it's great to have good actors. Not all movies can be the same, and this movie makes good use of that.

Enjoy the film for what it is, don't expect too much and you'll get much more than you'd imagine.

Rated 10 Stars due to the lack of lenient criticism.

A self-indulgent mess of a film, which is ironic in a way, as it is lambasting the self-indulgence of the idle rich. Nonsense from start to finish and a total waste of everyone's time. Avoid.

I literally have no idea how to rate this movie. It comes in two halves, and I quite liked both of them, but the two halves belong to completely different films. Have you ever been driving down a quiet country road near your house, taken a left turn and suddenly found yourself in Helmand Province, Afghanistan? That's what this movie is like - there's a tonal shift around the halfway mark that's so jarring, so out of place with what's gone before, that it left me utterly dumbfounded, staring at the screen, saying over and over 'That didn't really happen, did it?'

If I've got trouble with it, I can only take pity on the people who had to market this movie. It's a pretty light comedy for the first half - all wacky families, odd-but-cute kid taking his first steps towards manhood, that sort of thing, and it's all very well done. And at the centre of it all is Donald Sutherland, never better in the role of a patriarch who has made scads of money, but lost out in many other ways. It's light and frothy and amusing and - then. Then the event happens, and everything turns VERY dark indeed. The second half plays more like a socially conscious melodrama, with teenage pregnancy, class division and... other issues. It's good too, for what it is, but that seismic shift in the middle of the film makes it all pretty hard to stomach.

So do I recommend this movie or not? Hell, I don't know. Both its parts are very good, but they add up to a baffling whole. I realize that that isn't necessarily very helpful, but you probably ought to be warned that this has been marketed as a comedy, and an enjoyable coming of age movie. That's true, but only up until the halfway mark...

If you just want to judge this movie based on the final product you see on the screen, it would be about 4 stars. I give it 6 because it wanted to be so much more and I will always find value in anyone or anything that aspires to greatness even when failure is the result.

Basically, would you rather see a prosaic movie that can only be boring and unimaginative be as great as it can be or a daring movie with interesting ideas, that could be great, turn out to be mediocre at best?

The talent the production attracted tells you that the potential was there but I am guessing the production either ran out of time or money or both as the finished product failed as a complete work of art.

It does make me wonder about Griffin Dunne, the director, I am intrigued by the subject matter he chooses to direct, you can always sense the potential, but he never seems to make a great film. I say that with the caveat that Addicted to Love is one of my favorite films, flawed, but it strikes a nerve with me.

Even as mediocre as Fierce People is, it will make you think, it is definitely intellectual, and the subject matter concerning humanity and the desires and motives and actions of modern day human beings as compared to primitive cultures is certainly interesting. The idea being that no matter how sophisticated modern man, especially in western cultures, thinks he is, when it all comes down to it we are still just human beings, animals, that want and need sex and food and shelter and comfort, and unfortunately, violence and cruelty and power over other human beings is often how we gain and protect what we have.

Bottom line, if you are simply looking for escapist entertainment, skip this one, you will be bored. But if you want to dig a little deeper and maybe think about the creatures you interact with on a daily basis in a different way, this film is worth a viewing.