Pirates: The Next Generation - Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales Is More Mediocre Than Awful.

The Good: Good performances, Kaya Scodelario is good, Effects are generally good
The Bad: Dull plot, Low on character development, Most of the humor falls flat, Thinly developed villain
The Basics: Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is about what one expects from the franchise at this point, a tired callback to the prior entertaining films.


I had no drive to see Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. In fact, Johnny Depp is off the list, much like Mel Gibson, at this point, so I would have been content to never see the latest Pirates Of The Caribbean film. But, the cheapskate in me won out and when Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales was part of a double feature locally, I justified watching Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales as a freebie while paying for the other film. Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales generally tries to ignore Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (reviewed here!) and hearken back to Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End (reviewed here!) instead. As such, Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is essentially the story of Henry Turner, Will Turner's son.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is, as one might expect, a film filled with chases and the fairly unrelenting nature of the pace is contrasted occasionally by attempts at humor and flashbacks filled with exposition. But, at its core, Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is a fantasy film that is Henry Turner's quest to rescue his father, played off the undead Captain Salazar hunting Jack Sparrow. The macguffin in this particular film is Poseidon's Trident and the quest for that is the excuse to have a new pirate chasing Jack Sparrow while Henry attempts to do his own thing.

As a child, Henry Turner rows out to sea and manages to locate the Flying Dutchman, home of his father, Will. Will urges Henry to give up his quest to rescue him, but advises him to enlist Jack Sparrow to help him. Nine years later, Henry is aboard a ship that is attacked by the undead Spanish Captain Salazar. Salazar asks Henry to deliver Sparrow a message, but Henry - as the lone survivor of the attack, accused of insubordination - is arrested by the British and taken to St. Martin. Jack Sparrow, as it happens, is on St. Martin, attempting to rob a bank by literally stealing the bank. Henry manages to slip away from his captors to the British jail, where he finds Carina Smyth. Carina is a scientist who is following her father's journal to a map that no man can read that will lead to Poseidon's Trident. Henry, Carina, and Sparrow escape execution and head for the seas on a quest to find the Trident Of Poseidon, which Henry believes will allow him to free Will from the Flying Dutchman because it will imbue Jack Sparrow with complete control over the seas.

With Jack Sparrow having given away his compass, Salazar and his ship are able to surface and they begin slaughtering various pirates, most of which are part of Barbossa's new fleet. When Salazar attacks Barbosa's main ship, Barbosa negotiates for his life. He begins a hunt for Jack Sparrow to save his own life (and in the hopes of getting his beloved ship, the Black Pearl, back from Sparrow). With Salazar hunting them, Barbosa and Sparrow search for the Trident Of Poseidon.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales feels like it is a pitch for future Pirates Of The Caribbean theme park rides the way it includes so many chase scenes. There's the stealing of the bank, the pirates and undead sharks on the island and, of course, the rescue of Sparrow, Smyth and Henry Turner; much of the movie feels like exactly what it is, a prolonged series of chases, as opposed to the protagonists actually hunting something.

The character relationships in Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales suggest that Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides did not resonate as strongly with fans of the franchise. The first three Pirates Of The Caribbean films featured Jack Sparrow, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann and while Sparrow flirted with Swann, the movies kept putting Turner and Swann together as they built a romantic relationship. Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales tries to replicate that chemistry by having Henry Turner and Carina Smyth at the start of their relationship, butting heads but clearly headed in the direction of a relationship. The film is complicated by putting Barbosa into Smyth's backstory, but the bulk of the film is Henry and Carina's story.

The irony here is twofold; for a franchise built upon Johnny Depp's charisma, celebrity and sense of comic timing, Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales avoids keeping the focus on Depp's Captain Sparrow for too long. Second, for all the press for Salazar as the villain, his appearance in Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales acts as more of a secondary complication than the primary focus of the film. Salazar acts as a medium by which the film can present a bonanza of special effects.

To be fair, when it is lit in a way that the effects can actually be seen and appreciated, Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales looks amazing. The effects - while not linked to any sensible sense of physics - are visually impressive for their level of detail and creepiness.

The real winner in Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is Kaya Scodelario. Scodelario follows Keira Knightly as a strong female character in the Pirates franchise who might appear at moments to be a damsel in distress, but is actually highly motivated and capable. Scodelario's Smyth is a scientist who is self-actualized and self-motivated, which allows her to play as headstrong, smart, articulate and fun for the bulk of Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.

Brenton Thwaites is well-cast as Will Turner's son, as he looks a lot like a young Orlando Bloom. Thwaites and Scodelario play off one another well and make Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales watchable, if not particularly good.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales moves to make Captain Sparrow the king of the seas, but it is other characters in the film who are resourceful and rise to heroic heights. As a result, odds are pretty good that Depp's Sparrow will easily be trumped by Amber Heard as the ruler of the seas when Justice League is released later this year. As it stands, Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is a humorless continuation of the franchise where Jack Sparrow is minimized to lead to a potential continuation of the franchise that allows other characters to grow and take over when Depp no longer has the box office appeal the franchise needs to survive.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Wonder Woman
Baywatch
Alien: Covenant
Guardians Of The Galaxy, Volume 2

4/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Mediocrity Mires Minions

The Good: Generally good animation and voice performances
The Bad: Not funny, Light on character, Dull plot
The Basics: Minions is an unfortunately unnecessary film that begs the viewer to stick with it until its obvious resolution.


With Summer Blockbuster Season firmly upon us, it is the time of year when sequels reign. Perhaps the most risky sequel of the summer is Minions, which is a prequel to Despicable Me (reviewed here!) and attempts to grow on the momentum and franchise that Despicable Me 2 (reviewed here!) delivered for Universal two years ago. The strategy behind Minions is similar to that of Despicable Me 2, which is to hire impressive voice talents, as opposed to developing an impressive story or developing characters viewers will want to watch over and over again.

Minions follows the adventures of three of the small yellow creatures of the Minion race, leading up to their inevitable and obvious meeting with the villainous Gru. While the Minions have been background characters in the Despicable Me franchise, Minions tries to convince viewers that the little yellow assistants can carry their own film. Unfortunately, for all writer Brian Lynch's efforts, he fails. Instead of creating another Despicable Me sequel or a film that is truly about the Minions, Minions is a Despicable Me film where (save for the last few minutes), Gru is replaced by a different villain and the Minions (unwittingly) assist her in her plot for domination.

After a history of the evolution of the Minions, the Minions end up in Antarctica following the defeat of Napoleon (the last losing side they are on before they flee to try to be self-sufficient). After a brief period of prosperity, the Minions become bored and troubled. The Minion Kevin steps up to try to find a new home for the Minions and/or a new overlord to give the race purpose again. Reluctantly accompanied by Stuart and Bob, Kevin journeys out into the world, where he ends up in New York City in 1968. There, the trio sees a commercial for Scarlett Overkill and the Orlando villain convention. Determined to get to Orlando, the three Minions hitchhike with the Nelsons (who are bank robbers headed to the convention).

At the convention, Kevin, Stuart and Bob are recruited by Scarlett Overkill to join her criminal enterprise. After defeating all the other potential sidekicks, the minions convince Scarlett that they are the best and she takes the trio to the United Kingdom where she is planning her biggest crime. In England, the Minions help Scarlett steal the Queen's scepter, but before she can be made the new queen, Bob inadvertently pulls Excalibur out of the stone and is made king. Determined to take over England, Scarlett Overkill turns her attention to killing Bob and the other Minions so she can take the throne.

Minions is unfortunately bland, a fact I did not consciously acknowledge until halfway through the film when I realized I had not laughed once. Lacking both humor and charm, Minions utterly fails to entertain and my mantra while watching much of the film was "who is this intended for?" There are references for adults (not particularly funny) like Minions on the therapist's couch and reactions in England mirroring girls reacting to The Beatles, and the bright colors and slapstick gags might appeal to children, but it is hard to figure out who the film is geared for. The humor is not sophisticated enough to appeal to adults and it's not manic enough to actually entertain children.

The voice acting in Minions is acceptable, but given that half the lines are gibberish spoken by Pierre Coffin to embody the Minions, it is hardly one of the great voice acting events of all time. Instead, there is a moment of delight when viewers realize that Allison Janney is voicing Madge Nelson and the shrug one delivers when they realize Sandra Bullock's Scarlett Overkill sounds remarkably similar to Janney.

The characters in Minions are not horribly distinctive or compelling; it does not take long before viewers realize they cannot carry the film. That makes it easy to pass Minions by.

For other prequels, please check out my reviews of:
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Prometheus
Rogue One

2.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Art, Automatons, Loneliness, Nudity: The Best Offer Is Worth Watching, But Hard To Get Excited For Watching Again!

The Good: Decent acting, Wonderful directing, Interesting characters
The Bad: Slow build-up to a stark resolution
The Basics: The Best Offer is a smart film that builds up to a reversal in the final fifteen minutes that makes perfect sense, but still feels surprisingly unsatisfying for all that precedes it.


As the new year begins, I find myself starting the year with independent cinema, as opposed to the current blockbusters. I’m not sure what I expected when I sat down to watch The Best Offer, I suppose I was secretly hoping to discover this year’s The Red Violin (reviewed here!), but what I found was very much the archetype of a foreign independent film. Indie films tend to be broken down (by me, at least) into two groups: professionally-made movies that have an decidedly artistic bent whereby they work to make a statement using the full artistry of film or small films by virtually unknown producers/directors/actors/writers that are produced inexpensively and illustrate the gumption and fortitude of those involved by bucking the studio system without any real hope of breakout success. The Best Offer is certainly the former; it is a beautifully-shot, well-acted movie, but one that has very limited appeal and is geared toward those who enjoy thought-provoking works, mood and style, as opposed to those looking for a story where events occur in a timely manner.

From the outset, the conceits in The Best Offer, which is a moody drama from writer/director Giuseppe Tornatore, are evident: Oldman is superstitious and loathes mobile phones. How those conceits will play out when the film’s protagonist is revealed to be a scammer and as he begins developing a relationship with the reclusive Claire Ibitsen makes the film engaging enough to stick with, despite the tone and how long it takes for the mysteries in the movie to actually get established.

Virgil Oldman is an appraiser and auctioneer, the owner of the Oldman’s auction house. Aging and lonely, he is very superstitious and on his birthday has to take the first call of the day he receives. That puts Claire directly in contact with the reclusive auctioneer and Oldman makes an uncharacteristic trip out to visit her parent’s estate to appraise their furniture. Oldman is not entirely above board; he uses his friend Whistler to buy seemingly worthless pieces through the auction house when Oldman recognizes them as lost greats. In that fashion, he has assembled a significant private gallery of portraits. Investigating the run-down Ibbetson Estate, Virgil meets with Fred the housekeeper, and inspects the mansion full of relics.

After bribing Fred for information on Claire and having discovered some intriguing mechanical pieces at the Ibbetson Villa, Virgil is surprised when Claire withdraws her willingness to have Oldman appraise her parents’ estate. When Whistler falls down on a bid and Robert, the mechanical genius who appraises and restores some of Oldman’s finds for him, discovers that gears that Oldman found at the Villa belong to an 18th Century android, Virgil is drawn into the mystery of who Claire is and what her house possesses.

Virgil Oldman is almost instantly characterized as extremely observant and that makes The Best Offer full of intrigue from the outset, despite not much actually happening. Thus, Oldman’s noticing gears around the Villa and stealthily removing them, creates a sense of mystery long before Robert and Virgil realize what they are building. Like so many independent films, The Best Offer is much more concerned with mood and character than with plot development, so the slow unfolding of the relationship between Virgil and Claire is much more what the film is about than the work of Robert (restoring the automaton) or the scams Virgil and Whistler run on Oldman’s clients.

Much of The Best Offer becomes a waiting game for the revelation of what Claire actually looks like and in the process, the movie treads toward the unfortunately familiar. When Virgil breaks down and activates the mobile phone that was gifted to him, the dialogue is very on-the-nose. Oldman is metaconscious in a way that works more from those evaluating the piece, as opposed to coming from a character. Virgil describing himself as rusty and broken is not presented as realistic dialogue.

As well, the smart viewer continues to watch The Best Offer waiting for how the revelation will come and wondering why Virgil Oldman does not get there first. Oldman scours the Ibbetson Villa for pieces of the Automaton and it becomes clear very early on that Claire is leaving the pieces scattered around the Villa to find them. Throughout the process of appraising the objects in the Villa, Claire is leaving the objects for him to find, while Oldman delivers her papers to sign and asks her to trust him. So, Claire and the viewer know Oldman is untrustworthy, but he seems surprised when she resists getting closer to him and trusting his professional opinions after a point.

Geoffrey Rush is characteristically brilliant as Virgil Oldman. When he is not simply reprising his role from The King’s Speech (reviewed here!), Rush is delightfully withdrawn and standoffish. When Oldman becomes stressed enough to start sweating and actually removes his gloves, the performance is unlike anything Rush has done in recent memory. When Rush and Sylvia Hoeks (Claire) have their first inevitable onscreen meeting, Tornatore captures the moment brilliantly. Tornatore uses space brilliantly in the subsequent scene; Claire is treated as another object Oldman covets and the remainder of the film has Rush evolving Oldman into a more human character who struggles to relate to Hoeks’s Claire. Rush is smart enough to make the evolution take enough time to be realistic. He slowly softens his body language and the expressiveness of his eyes.

One of the surprises for me in The Best Offer was Jim Sturgess. Sturgess plays Robert as a smart, creative restoration artist who is completely credible. The supporting role is nowhere near as dynamic as, for example, his role in One Day (reviewed here!), but he still has a strong screen presence and makes his scenes seem instantly significant. Sturgess has a greater role than Donald Sutherland and in The Best Offer he uses the time he has on screen to make the character so many orders more significant than Sutherland, completely stealing the more established actor’s thunder in the movie. In fact, it is Sturgess who pounds home one of the film’s most important lines by delivering it with much more subtlety than one might expect when Robert asks Oldman which he would choose: Claire or the automaton.

The Best Offer is the first film I have seen with Sylvia Hoeks and she is good as Claire. She has the tough task of creating a viable character with her voice alone, as opposed to with any physical presence. Hoeks does a good job and when she is brought on-screen, she manages to be more than just a pretty face. Hoeks has enough gravitas on screen that when Claire goes missing, there is a powerful feeling of loss in the movie; the viewer listens desperately for a hint of her voice and that plays out well under the direction of Tornatore.

Guiseppe Tornatore is an impressive writer and director and The Best Offer looks wonderful, even when it feels slow. The film is characterized by beautiful sets, crisp contrasts in colors (especially black on the stark white European restaurants at the film’s outset) and impressive sound design. But Tornatore keeps shifting what the movie is, which makes it harder to keep engaged. The film builds as a character drama while dabbling in various mysteries, without any one of the conspiratorial elements truly landing. Is the movie building up to a betrayal by Whistler or Robert? How will Claire react to Oldman’s deception in having the automaton rebuilt? The divergence with Claire going missing, all of these fail to have a strong sense of cohesion, despite the fact that The Best Offer maintains a very tight focus on Virgil Oldman.

Ultimately, The Best Offer is good – well acted, intriguing enough, beautifully shot – but it does not resonate after one is done watching it. Having spent two hours with Virgil Oldman on his weird adventure with antiquities and romance, that’s enough; it’s hard to want to rewatch the film, no matter how masterfully it was created and presented.

For other works with Donald Sutherland, please check out my reviews of:
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Hunger Games
Horrible Bosses
Reign Over Me
Ask The Dust
Pride & Prejudice
Cold Mountain
Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Ordinary People

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Mystery Of How So Many Talented Individuals Could Fail To Create Something Funny

The Good: Excellent cast, Decent concept, One or two moments of humor
The Bad: Terrible use of cast (poor acting), Simple and disappointing plot, Largely not funny!
The Basics: In a complete waste of time and talent, wonderful comic actors end up mired in a superhero dramedy fails to be funny or even entertaining.


Every now and then, there comes a film that has an awesome concept, a great cast, and a convincing trailer and it turns into such a miserable viewing experience for the viewer that it is almost enough to make one swear off movies (especially those featuring the performers in such an abomination) altogether. Mystery Men is one of those types of movies and whatever your hopes for the film are, odds are if you are a fan of any of the principle actors involved - like William H. Macy, Hank Azaria, Janeane Garofalo, Eddie Izzard, and Ben Stiller - you will be woefully disappointed.

Champion City, a generic city in the United States, is a place populated by heroes, none greater than Captain Amazing. Captain Amazing has fallen on hard times and to make some money, he releases the villainous Casanova Frankenstein from prison. His plan soon goes awry and he ends up captured by the enemy. It then falls to a group of lesser, unimpressive superheroes to rise to the occasion to save Captain Amazing and Champion City. The fate of both is in the hands of the perpetually upset (though never usefully angry) Mr. Furious, the fork-throwing Blue Raja, the digging ace known as The Shoveller, the sardonic Bowler, the gassy Spleen, the (not really) Invisible Boy, and the inscrutable Sphynx.

The thing about Mystery Men is that in reading what I just wrote, the movie lived up to its entire potential. What I mean by that is that the only gag of substance in Mystery Men is the revelation of what the less than super powers of the characters are. So, for example, the first time the Blue Raja throws a fork, it's mildly amusing. When he does it repeatedly . . . well, it's stale by the second throw. Invisible Boy is a clever commentary; he reasons that because he is black and everyone ignores him he must be invisible. But that's the joke, it's done and in the movie it's a joke that is completely belabored.

And the less said about The Spleen the better. Yes, it's all fart jokes with him.

This is one of those terrible movies where all of the best material appears in the preview. If you've seen the trailer and enjoyed it, you've seen the cream of this movie. In fact, if you see the Smashmouth video for "All Star," you've seen the best footage from this movie - maybe it's even better without any of the dialogue.

The thing is, the characters in this film are not genuinely characters. Instead, they are jokes and once the joke is revealed (about a minute out of the movie), we're left with two hours of watching a series of jokes try to reinvent themselves over and over again. The best way to describe this movie is like seeing a high school student with a t-shirt with a phrase on it. The shirt says something like "I kiss better than your boyfriend," you read the shirt, evaluate the wearer, laugh or don't, and move on. When the person keeps coming by with that same t-shirt on, most people don't keep reading it over and over again. We got it the first time. Mystery Men is the type of one-trick pony that asks the viewer to continually reread the t-shirt, expecting that our reaction will be the same each time. And they're banking on that reaction being laughter.

Writers Bob Burden, Neil Cuthbert and Director Kinka Usher are lucky when they get the first laugh.

This is a startlingly un-funny movie for a film that has such comic talents as Paul Rubens (best known as Pee Wee Herman), Hank Azaria, Ben Stiller and Janeane Garofalo. These are people well known for making this reviewer laugh. I like their work. Yet here they are operating where the lines are not funny, the situation is not treated as funny and the jokes are mostly simple and stupid.

Unfortunately, there's not enough in the script even to allow the genuine acting talents to break out and impress the viewer with what they can do as far as presentation. William H. Macy is a favorite of mine and he was robbed of any awards for his masterful performance in Magnolia (reviewed here!). In Mystery Men, Macy plays The Shoveller and there is not enough written for him to do anything other than deliver the few lines he has, as best he can and let the performance die its quick death. Similarly, the truly great actress Lena Olin appears briefly in Mystery Men and is not given enough to work with to actually perform.

Adding to the poor writing, terrible characters and the generally low-quality of the acting, director Kinka Usher fails to create any visual sense with this movie that the film is progressing. The pace is belabored and weighed down with continual attempts to replay the same joke and Usher fails to make the film look good while slowly killing the audience with the same stale routines.

All in all, this is a movie that is an utter disappointment that fails to produce anything worthwhile despite having the potential in much of the talent to create something unique and entertaining. Save yourself two hours of life; find something else to watch this weekend!

For other superhero films, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Super
Kick-Ass
My Super Ex-Girlfriend

2/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Frida Is The Portrait Of An Amazing Artist - Chicago Got Lucky!

The Good: Excellent acting, Directing, Visual style, Character
The Bad: Important gaps in character
The Basics: The biography of Frida Kahlo is excellently portrayed by Selma Hayek with amazing direction and directoral vision.


For a long time after American Beauty won the Best Picture Oscar, I waited for a movie that actually was the best picture of the year to win. That Gladiator won was disgusting to me, that A Beautiful Mind won was sad - though predictable - and that Chicago won was so disappointing as to not even be worth mentioning. Whenever I complain about the movie that actually won the Best Picture, I try to provide at least two films I know are better than whatever won. Worthy of usurping Chicago was The Two Towers and now, I would make an argument for Frida.

Frida tells the story of little-known Mexican painter Frida Kahlo. Kahlo's genius as an artist starts as a young woman. When she is nearly killed in a trolley accident, she recovers by getting the attention of visiting artist Diego Rivera. Kahlo and Rivera begin a tumultuous relationship that is complicated by Rivera's infidelity, Kahlo's health problems and the pair's political philosophies and artistic integrity. As Marxists, Kahlo and Rivera find themselves the subject of controversy abroad and their lives, though difficult, are inextricably bound together.

The magic of Frida is that it manages to tell the story of a strong woman without being overbearing. Instead, Kahlo is portrayed as an eminently practical woman who is simply following her dreams. Without trying to be, Frida comes across as courageous and the most admirable type of woman; one who does what she wants, is bound only by her own integrity and becomes actualized despite adversity.

That Frida is based on a real person or attempts to accurately portray the life of Frida Kahlo, the historic persona, makes the movie no less enjoyable. The reason this film succeeds is that it never feels like a biography, nor like it is trying to glorify Kahlo. Instead, director Julie Taymor creates a film that is visually stunning and moves at a fairly fast pace. Taymor's use of color, especially, is magnificent. There is great contrast throughout the movie between the inorganic blues and bright reds and the browns and tans of the desert environment. Taymor has an eye for color that mirror's Kahlo's own. Taymor's film ultimately comes across as an extended painting, incorporating many of Kahlo's.

Selma Hayek brings Kahlo to life and it is no surprise to watch all of the DVD extras to discover that Hayek fought long and hard to get the movie made. As Kahlo was a personal hero of Hayek, her portrayal of Kahlo comes from a personal history of great research, making this perhaps the definitive biography of Frida Kahlo. Hayek does more than bring a great figure and a monobrow to the role; she moves with a grace and profound sense of reclusive dignity that comes across in all of Kahlo's self-portraits. Watching this movie, it becomes inconceivable that anyone else could portray Kahlo.

Hayek's magnificent performance - and she was robbed for the Best Actress awards - is supported by an equally wonderful performance by Alfred Molina as Diego Rivera. Molina plays Rivera as a spirited individual, much like Ruben Blades did in Cradle Will Rock. Their performances differ, though, as Molina makes River much less flamboyant and more reluctant about his own sense of greatness. With the emphasis on Kahlo in Frida, Molina's Rivera lives much more in his wife's shadow, acknowledging the superiority of Kahlo's work. Never does Molina's Rivera seem selfish about this fact, making his performance even more wrenching.

The supporting cast of Frida is highlighted by Roger Rees, who plays Frida's father, Guillermo. Rees - perhaps best known as Robin Coldcort on Cheers - does an amazing job at portraying one of the most influential people in Kahlo's formative process. Rees creates a sympathetic and inwardly strong character that makes it clear how Frida would develop into such a headstrong person. It becomes almost inconceivable, then, that Frida would show the death of Kahlo's mother, but not Guillermo.

In fact, this omission is one of the few problems with this otherwise truly great film. So many other important facets of Frida Kahlo's character are addressed, most notably, her ability to stay with an unfaithful man like Diego Rivera, that the absence of her father's death becomes difficult to swallow. Still, Frida manages to explore a complex and vivacious individual. Kahlo's passion and powerful sexuality flow through her life and this movie.

Who will enjoy Frida? Anyone with any taste. It's better than Chicago. Easily. The characters are compelling, strengthened by a strong sense of realism. And while all of the characters seem very genuine, the film is so visually complex that it never seems ordinary. The people behave like real people presented through an artistic lens that immediately engages the viewer without any cheap tricks like ridiculous songs and flashy sexuality. Why didn't Frida win Best Picture? Why wasn't it even nominated? It certainly wasn't for the quality of the cast, the direction or the characters. Perhaps some mysteries of taste will never be solved.

Fortunately, Frida exists to remind us that style and substance can blend and that quality need not lack flair.

For other works featuring Salma Hayek, be sure to visit my reviews of:
30 Rock - Season Three
Across The Universe
Dogma

9/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all of my movie reviews!

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

History's Most Blase Film? Elizabeth Leaves Me Unimpressed!

The Good: Costumes? Effects.
The Bad: Pacing, Acting, Storytelling.
The Basics: Shockingly dull and nowhere near as visually impressive as in the trailers, Elizabeth is one historic disappointment.


First of all, I enjoy a good historical drama. I look at historical dramas and I try to take them for what they are; fictions set in a past era. I tend to enjoy films that effectively put the viewer in a completely different time or place. That said, I did not find much to enjoy about Elizabeth.

Elizabeth tells the story of Queen Elizabeth I's rise to power as a Protestant ruler in Bloody Mary's shadow. Kept alive by Queen Mary, who soon bites the dust from her brain tumor, Elizabeth inherits a country torn by religious and political differences. While Elizabeth personally courts Robert Dudley, Sir Francis Walsingham professionally aids her in ridding the court of spies and attempting to get England powerful without having to ally itself to either Spain or France. And, of course, knowing what we do about history, she does. Lucky her.

The problem is, the film is dreadfully dull. I can't put it in any nicer terms than that. The pace is slow, the film direction is ponderous and the characters spend a great deal of time on screen sitting still.

I'm ignoring the historical inaccuracies, because, as I said, I take historical fiction as historical fiction.

But what killed the film for me was the acting. Joseph Fiennes looks and sounds the same as he did in Shakespeare In Love (reviewed here!). He's presenting no new side of his personality, he's not making Dudley any different from the character we saw in the other period piece. Heck, he didn't shave differently either!

The biggest disappointment in terms of acting was the namesake, Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth. There is no vibrancy to her performance, there is not a single line that she makes come alive through her acting. As a perfect example, in a critical scene wherein Elizabeth is attempting to convince the House of Lordes to vote her way on a proposition, she is being clever and ironic. Blanchett's performance is too reserved to play the irony out, though. Instead of being reserved or superior or even funny with her tongue in cheek barbs and verbal dodges, Blanchett makes Elizabeth stuffy. And it doesn't work.

In fact, the only acting worth mentioning in the film is Geoffrey Rush as Walsingham. He plays the adviser with a great mixture of reservation and tact. He makes the character feel like someone we might meet in the political arena.

The costumes are fine and there's a nice motif of color versus darkness contrasting Elizabeth's wardrobe with Mary's.

But one weak motif cannot change the fact that Elizabeth is two hours of weak acting, attempts at period intrigue and a great deal of boredom set in the sixteenth century.

For other works with Christopher Eccleston, be sure to visit my reviews of:
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Heroes - Season 1
28 Days Later . . .

4.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Arguably The Most Anticipated Summer Blockbuster, Green Lantern Is Exciting And Fun!

The Good: Amazing special effects, Good character development, Wonderful acting, Smart characters.
The Bad: Rushed quality/editing, Underuse of Corps.
The Basics: Green Lantern arrives and no one is more surprised than I to discover that it is not the best movie of the year (or even this Summer Blockbuster Season), though it entertains thoroughly.


Superhero movies have a lot to live up to since The Dark Knight (reviewed here!). The Dark Knight illustrated that super hero films could be smart, psychologically deep and entertaining and while I've remained in the minority in my belief that Watchmen (reviewed here!) did all that and more, I can recognize that many people are still waiting for the film that will top The Dark Knight or serve to fill the same niche in their collection while providing them something new. This summer, the DC blockbuster in a Marvel-heavy summer is Green Lantern. And after all of the hype, I am pleased to say Green Lantern comes close, even if it does not quite live up to the impossible standards fans might have had for it.

Green Lantern is a bigger superhero film and it reflects a story that is much bigger. Going into the screening tonight, I figured the movie could only disappoint me if two things happened: 1. Ryan Reynolds made a joke out of the role of Hal Jordan and the Green Lanterns and 2. Sinestro, who has been shown in all of the promotional materials for the movie as a Green Lantern, turned to the Yellow Side. I'm not against ambitious moviemaking, but with it well-leaked that Hector Hammond and Parallax were going to be villains in Green Lantern, adding the fall of Sinestro into this first volume seemed like it would be overkill. Fortunately, Reynolds manages to not make Green Lantern the laughing stock of the cinematic superhero universe. As for the other, my stomach tightened when a yellow ring is forged, though the creative staff managed to not make the ultimate mistake with rushing Sinestro's turn.

All I truly know about Green Lantern, the comic book upon which the film Green Lantern is based comes from reading the Blackest Night Saga. But the whole idea of the power rings are related quite succinctly in Blackest Night: Tales Of The Corps (reviewed here). The basic premise of the Green Lantern Corps, though, is that the Green Lanterns are interstellar police officers monitoring sectors of space from threats to entire worlds. The Green Lanterns derive their power from willpower and with that basic understanding, I felt both up to speed going into Green Lantern and not tied to the specifics of the Green Lantern mythos. In other words, this is a very pure review of the film Green Lantern. Fortunately for those who do not have the background in the comic book, the film Green Lantern adequately explains all of the principles. And for those with more familiarity with the source material, there are in-jokes like Carol's code name being "sapphire" that fans will appreciate.

To protect the universe, the Guardians divided the universe into 3600 sectors, each with a Green Lantern responsible for patrolling and protecting the sector. One Green Lantern, Abin Sur, was responsible for imprisoning the ruthless, fear-based creature Parallax on Ryat. But there, a guardian becomes possessed by Parallax and it kills a team of Lanterns and begins to hunt Abin Sur. In an altercation, Parallax wounds Abin Sur and the Green Lantern escapes to the nearest planet in Sector 2814 to find his replacement. On Earth, test pilot Hal Jordan is engaged in a test with two drone planes and his human partner, Carol Ferris, where he manages to defeat the Ferris Industry Sabre 3 drones, at the cost of his plane. Reeling from the likely loss of an important contract, Hal Jordan is on his own when he is engulfed in the green light from Abin Sur's ring and Jordan meets Abin Sur who gives him the green ring of power before dying.

While Hal Jordan begins to learn about the powers associated with the green lantern ring, the Green Lantern Sinestro appeals to the Guardians of Oa to allow him to take a team to attempt to destroy Parallax. As Hal Jordan trains on Oa under Tomar-Re and Kilowog, on Earth Hector Hammond, the reclusive son of a powerful Senator, is brought in to autopsy the body of Abin Sur. While he does, a fragment of Parallax infests Hector, which causes him to develop powers like the ability to read minds and puts the man in touch with the main body of Parallax. As the Guardians contemplate Sinestro's desperate plea for an ultimate weapon, Parallax zooms in on Earth with only Hal Jordan standing to save the planet.

As one might guess, Green Lantern is a big summer special effects-driven film. Right off the bat, it is worth noting all of the special effects truly are incredible and this is one of the most visually spectacular films I have seen in a long time. The characters that are virtual look good, there are seamless transitions between Ryan Reynolds and his digital counterpart and the constructs Hal Jordan imagines into being look cool. Green Lantern would have been d.o.a. if the effects looked cheesy or if Hal Jordan, whom the ring chose, did not adapt to creating compelling or interesting constructs with his willpower. As the movie goes on, Hal Jordan's imagination and willpower - in combination with a rocking special effects team - develop cooler and cooler constructs and they look great.

So, why am I not absolutely bowled over by Green Lantern? The main problem with the film is that it is rushed. The story is rushed and the editing is poorly done, lending the feeling that the movie was put together, more than it flows. So, for example, the viewer does not see Abin Sur's ship crash on Earth. Instead, we see him escape Parallax, then we see the crashed ship in the water and Abin Sur sending the ring bubble out to find his successor. I'm not saying the audience is not smart enough to realize Abin Sur has crashed, but the movie would have flowed better had that transition been included. Hector Hammond is abruptly dropped into the film and while the connection between him, Carol Ferris and Hal Jordan comes out, some backstory that included all three would have been nice.

And while the Yellow Power Ring makes its appearance, that, too, feels rushed. Hopes that there would be a sequel, Green Lantern: Fall Of Sinestro wherein the complicated struggle Sinestro has as he is overcome with the power of fear in a complex character study, are dashed during a scene midway through the closing credits (waiting until the very end of the credits only yields an advertisement for Green Lantern graphic novels. The only saving grace of this rushed scene is that it is entirely out of context: the tease could be for a scene midway through the next movie, for all we no. Yes, there is still the potential for a sequel laced with character depth, not just a lame conversion of the most powerful Green Lantern seen in the film by curiosity.

Fortunately, on of the real strengths of Green Lantern comes in the characters. Hal Jordan is cocky, but likable and all of the characters are reasonably smart and have some adult sensibilities to them. While Hal Jordan struggles to rise to the occasion, the whole point of the initially pointless plane testing scene that is the first big sequence in Green Lantern becomes to make it plausible that Jordan has a fearless quality to him. The testing scene also allows the viewer to witness the key backstory element for Hal Jordan's characterization as we see him lose his father. The strength of Hal's father lives on in him.

In this regard, Hector Hammond makes for a compelling foil. Hector's father is very much alive, but is so disappointed in his xenobiologist son that he keeps Hector at arm's length. Moreover, Hal Jordan's power comes from his willpower and Hector is pretty much the ultimate villain. Hector Hammond is not a villain so much as he is collateral damage, a bystander who is randomly infected with the evil Parallax. From that, his body begins to undergo horrible changes that are outside his control and while he manifests similar powers to Hal Jordan, his are powered by the fear others have for him.

Even as the transformation happens, Hector Hammond asks the right questions and this is the reason I suspect this movie might age better for me than the impression I had from my first viewing. Hector is smart enough to understand that he and Hal have been given great power, but he cannot understand how their lives are diverging so much. Carol Ferris is similarly smart, recognizing Hal Jordan despite the fact that his cheekbones are covered. Carol does something few people do in any movie, much less superhero films; she effectively denounces the binary view of the protagonist. Ferris observes the immaturity of treating the world in absolutes and that moment, very early on in the film, is very refreshing and disarming. Even Hal Jordan's best friend is smart enough to realize that Hal Jordan is developing some serious powers.

While all of this is good, the scenes on Oa are far too brief and Tomar-Re and Kilowog are essentially relegated to being cameo appearances and Sinestro is not given nearly enough time to develop. Even in their limited roles, Geoffrey Rush (Tomar-Re), Michael Clark Duncan (Kilowog) and Mark Strong (Sinestro) are distinctively performed to make one believe they are higher beings than the human Hal Jordan. Similarly, Peter Sarsgaard is great as Hector, with his ability to emote so much through just his eyes. Blake Lively plays Carol Ferris as smart and sassy enough to hold her own in all of her scenes.

But it comes down to Ryan Reynolds to sell Green Lantern and he lands it. First, Reynolds makes Hal Jordan likable and he does it without his usual smirk and slouching. Instead, he is boisterous when Hal is piloting and he is quiet and human when he is on his own. The subtle scene wherein Hal and Hector converse shows off Reynolds' serious abilities and helps to define Hal Jordan as something other than a dumb jock type. As important, Reynolds manages to play the extraordinary Green Lantern in a completely different way from how he played the extraordinary Wade in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (reviewed here!).

Green Lantern is fast-paced, even to its own detriment, and while it did not leave me feeling as excited as I did after seeing The Dark Knight the first time, the potential for the franchise looks good and all of the pieces are in place for a grand continued adventure.

[NOTE: Having seen the film twice now, spend the extra money for the 3-D version; this film uses that exceptionally well!]

For other live-action DC superhero films, please check out my reviews of:
Superman Returns
Batman Begins
Jonah Hex
Catwoman

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

More Surprising Than Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Being Made Is How Mundane It Is!

The Good: The film starts well and ends all right, Generally the acting
The Bad: No real character development, 3-D effects do not add anything, Ian McShane is underused, Movie lags.
The Basics: Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a strangely slow-moving series of monotonous sequences that barely add up to a typical summer action-adventure film.


When I first heard about a film being made based upon a ride at Disney World, I was skeptical. The ride was Pirates Of The Caribbean and the film did not knock me out. So, when I heard that there was going to be a fourth Pirates Of The Caribbean film, it was hard for me to muster up the effort to care. Having now seen Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, it is hard for me to muster up the enthusiasm to write much about it, so this is likely to be one of my shorter film reviews.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides reinvigorates the franchise without the two characters that couldn't reasonably appear given how the last film ended. So, where in the Pirates timeline this occurs is a bit murky, though it is after the first trilogy. My main complaint with Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is that it is nothing viewers have not seen before. Moreover, it doesn't feel like much in the way of an organic movie. For sure, it looks fine (though the 3-D effects do not add very much to the movie, so shelling out for the 3-D version is not recommended), but rather than being a cohesive film it feels more like a series of frenetic events loosely connected by scenes where I didn't grow to care more about the characters. So, there's a chase followed by a swordfight followed by a mutiny leading to a battle at sea and then a climactic battle with little else in between. And after two hours, I didn't care a bit.

Gibbs, the first officer of Jack Sparrow's ship, the Black Pearl, is brought to trial in London where he is acquitted by Jack Sparrow himself, who is impersonating a judge. After a chase to elude the British soldiers and King George himself, Sparrow goes in search of a doppelganger using his name to recruit a crew for his new ship. Having lost the Black Pearl, Sparrow becomes interested in the impostor and fights with his double until he discovers that it is Angelica impersonating him. A former romantic interest, Angelica is searching for the Fountain Of Youth, which Sparrow recently had a map to. Dragooned by Angelica, Sparrow finds himself aboard the Queen Anne's Revenge working for the mysterious pirate Blackbeard.

While Barbossa, who now has only one leg, hunts for Sparrow, the Fountain and the two components needed to make the Fountain's water worthwhile (two chalices in the possession of the corpse of Ponce de Leon and a mermaid's tear), Sparrow leads a mutiny on Blackbeard's ship. Fighting officers who are mindless voodoo zombies for Blackbeard, Sparrow haplessly finds himself involved in rescuing a missionary, capturing a mermaid, and leading the Spanish (and English) to the fabled Fountain Of Youth.

Honestly, there's not much more to recount than the plot here. The rest of Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is nothing new at all. Sparrow does not grow, change or evolve in the course of the film. Similarly, Johnny Depp seems more subdued in the role of Sparrow, as if he is getting sick of playing slightly crazy or crazed. The result is that he slouches through the role and doesn't land the character with the sense of panache that made him so popular to begin with.

Add to that, the supporting cast is woefully misused or underused. Geoffrey Rush returns as Barbossa and his character is out for revenge. Having lost the Black Pearl and his leg to Blackbeard, Barbossa seems like he ought to be more angry than Rush plays him and this is an unfortunate twist for an actor who has such presence to him usually.

The same can be said for Ian McShane as Blackbeard. For sure, McShane has an amazing pirate look and he sells the appearance of Blackbeard. But his gravitas is entirely underused in the role. He kills coldly and he threatens members of the crew and his own daughter, but when he does it comes across as more mundane than terrifying or evil. That's not to say Blackbeard isn't evil; he is. But it is more his acts than the way McShane acts as him that sells him as evil in this film.

I've not been a fan of Penelope Cruz and her performance as Angelica in Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides did not turn me around on her.

As for the special effects, Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is adequate, but in no way extraordinary. Two of the major battles are cheated by being in darkness, so the effects department gets away with making some of the battles ridiculously simple and just keeping them moving fast to seem in any way extraordinary. But things like the arrival of the Queen Anne's Revenge in Whitecap Bay reminded me of The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (reviewed here!).

Ultimately, this is pretty mindless summer fare and with over two hours of runtime, it feels long. In contrast, I saw this as a double feature with X-Men: First Class (reviewed here!) and while they are about the same duration, this felt about three times as long. I wouldn't even bother catching this for free on television.

For other Pirates Of The Caribbean films, please check out my reviews of:
The Curse Of The Black Pearl
Dead Man's Chest
At World's End

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Is The King's Speech Truly The Best Film Of 2010? No, But It's Worth Seeing!

The Good: Charming, Great acting, Moments of character, Plot development
The Bad: Not homogeneously great acting, Pacing issues
The Basics: While a certainly worthwhile film to see at least once, The King's Speech is not a perfect film, nor necessarily a worthy Best Picture winner (no matter how many people were betting on it!)


It is a very rare thing that I find myself reviewing a film in theaters that has already won the Best Picture Oscar.  As those who follow my many reviews know, I am proud of having seen every film that won the Best Picture and, like last year when The Hurt Locker (reviewed here!) won, I found myself forced to take in a new movie rather suddenly in order to keep current with the Best Picture winners.  I am not eager to get mired into the whole Best Picture thing while reviewing The King's Speech, except to say that I went into the film biased.  I suspected that it would not be as extraordinary a use of the film medium as Inception (reviewed here!) was and thus I had a little resentment that the film I rooted for all year fell to this at the Oscars.  That said . . .

The King's Speech was almost exactly what I figured it to be going in, save that the most impressive visual moments of the film were all included in the Oscars various clip shows.  This is not a film brimming with movement, spectacle or even much in the way of a weighty sense of consequence for most of the film.  That said, it is worth noting that it is not The Remains Of The Day, either.  In other words, this is not  terribly droll, plodding along British film where the viewer falls asleep eight times and awakens each time to feel like they have missed nothing because the film has not moved.  No, The King's Speech actually tackles the British "stiff upper lip" stereotype and explores the power and poignancy of early psychology in a rapidly changing world.  And, arguably, one of the most refreshing aspects of the film is that the protagonist is not instantly cured and the struggle is worth watching for the most part.

Opening in 1925 with the closing speech at the Empire Exhibition, the Duke Of York, Prince Albert is introduced as a nervous man with a stutter and a long-suffering wife who clearly loves and supports him.  While Albert - Bertie to his wife and family - struggles with his words, Elizabeth tries to find him a tutor or speech therapist who will actually help him.  In 1934 in London, she finds Lionel Logue, who has unconventional methods, but is eager to treat the whole problem with Bertie, not just the physical manifestations of it.  While Lionel and Bertie explore an unconventional relationship where Lionel treats Bertie as an equal instead of a royal, Bertie struggles with living in his father's shadow, especially under the pressure of the 1934 Christmas broadcast.

As the years pass, Albert's sense of anxiety over the speech impediment grows as his older brother, David, continues to carry on with married women and appears unable and unwilling to maintain the traditions of the royal family.  With the death of King George V and the abdication of David, Bertie finds himself in the unlikely role of Britain's monarch.  With the rise of Hitler, the new King George VI must master speeches to rally the English to the defense of Europe.

First off, it is very much worth noting that The King's Speech has pacing issues and the only thing that got it lumped into the "R" rating was a few moments of language wherein Bertie explodes or discovers that when he swears, he does not stammer.  It is remarkably safe for teenagers, despite the language and all but the most prudish parents should feel unthreatened by sharing this with their families.  Of course, it is hard to see the appeal of The King's Speech for most youngsters, so it would be unsurprising if young people did not want to see the film.

The pacing is, in fact, the most serious issue with The King's Speech and the oppressive sense of mood almost undermines the film.  The King's Speech is very realistic in the time it takes to explore Bertie's condition and it is difficult to watch in may points as a result.  This is not a terribly entertaining film, but it does capture the realism of the times and places remarkably well.  This means the film is very gray and drab, the soundtrack is slow and plodding more than anything intended to arouse any excitement or enthusiasm.  But the film does have a sense of going somewhere and the saving grace of the film is that it  does.

So much has been said about Collin Firth's portrayal of Albert and there is little more than can be said.  He is incredible with portraying Albert with his speech impediment and as a result, he is frequently hearwrenching to watch.  He stammers expertly and in the moments where he struggles and clicks, it is impossible not to empathize with him because his portrayal includes acting through the eyes where he expresses a profound sense of shame and strength (alternately) as he struggles.

The supporting cast is mostly wonderful, with Michael Gambon using his brief time to memorably portray King George V, making it obvious how Bertie was so screwed up.  Similarly, Guy Pearce (Edward VIII/David), Timothy Spall (Churchill) and Derek Jacobi all make memorable use of their time on screen.  Helena Bonham Carter, however, slips too frequently to be considered a great actress in The King's Speech.  There are moments, like one where she congratulates Bertie, where her eyes play with the same whimsy that made her portrayal of the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland so delightfully creepy.  In other words, there were unfortunate moments where I was aware I was watching Helena Bonham Carter and not Elizabeth.

The same cannot be said of Geoffrey Rush, who provides arguably the most underrated performance in The King's Speech.  There is not a hint of any other character Rush has played in his defiant portrayal of Lionel Logue and he has the gravitas to stand up to Collin Firth and be a credible counterpart to his character.

In all, The King's Speech falls closer to what I call "predictable greatness" than actually being an impressive film.  The cast is a stacked deck and the subject is perfect Oscar fodder, but one suspects when the hype is gone, this film will end up on the same shelf as The English Patient where the forgettable greats go after their moment fades.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project, which is available for enjoyment here!  Check it out!

For other films in theaters, check out my reviews of:
Hall Pass
I Am Number Four
Unknown
Black Swan

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Geoffrey Rush At Trilogy's End With Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End

The Good: Entertaining, Geoffrey Rush's acting, Effects
The Bad: Predictable plot, Theme which prevents characters from developing, Disney conceits
The Basics: When Jack Sparrow is rescued, pirates come together for a political meeting to decide their fate for comedy, then much battling.


The Pirates Of The Caribbean films have not fared well with me as a reviewer. Honestly, while I could see the appeal to children and enthusiasts of special effects movies, I remained underwhelmed as an adult viewer. Indeed, while I found Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse Of The Black Pearl (reviewed here!) to be generally entertaining, I felt it was a pretty straightforward and unremarkable film. With the sequel, Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, (reviewed here!), I found myself ultimately feeling like this was a movie I had already sat through. So, it was with low expectations that I sat down to watch Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End, a film that the producers thankfully punctuated correctly.

The film begins where Dead Man's Chest ended, with Captain Jack Sparrow lost to the kraken (Davy Jones's not quite domesticated pet) and the crew of the Black Pearl regrouping with the mysterious Tia Dalma and the apparently resurrected Barbossa (the villain of The Curse Of The Black Pearl for those keeping score). This is all pertinent information for those coming to At World's End as a Pirates Of The Caribbean virgin. Fortunately, the film is remarkably accessible for those who have not seen Dead Man's Chest or did not enjoy it.

Barbossa and Elizabeth Swann are dispatched to Singapore to find the pirate lord Sao Feng, one of the nine pirate lords and the one Barbossa would like to enlist to aid in finding Jack Sparrow and rescuing him from Davy Jones's locker. With the help of Tia Dalma, Swann, Barbossa and Will Turner journey to Davy Jones's locker to find the Black Pearl and Captain Sparrow. Meanwhile the East India Company is using Davy Jones to round up and slaughter the pirates on the high seas, which leads to the death of hundreds of pirates and those who are foolish enough to attempt to stop them, including Governor Weatherby Swann, Elizabeth's father.

Once Jack is rescued from his surreal prison, Barbossa and Jack convene the council of the nine pirate lords to attempt to resolve the situation with Davy Jones. Barbossa's plan is to set free Calypso, the sea goddess who is imprisoned in human form and let her destroy their enemies. Sparrow and Swann want to fight and slay Jones, for various reasons. Meanwhile, the East India Company advances upon the pirates, threatening their very existence.

At World's End is both a welcome change and a rather erratic and long film. The movie is long - over two hours, forty minutes - and more than that, it feels long. It feels long because the series has set up so many loose ends that need to be tied up and it adds new elements (like the Calypso storyline) that need to be developed as well. The tying up loose ends takes time and most of it is generally satisfying. In fact, I found I enjoyed the beginning of this movie quite a bit more than Dead Man's Chest.

The bloated middle of the film then relies a great deal more on comedy than the other two films. It's straight-out comedy for the middle section as the pirate lords convene and the antics of the Black Pearl having two captains. The last third, then, becomes a rip-roaring adventure that . . . well, feels like a theme park ride. As the crew of the Black Pearl is set against the crew of the Flying Dutchman (the vessel of Davy Jones), the movie takes on the feel of an amusement park ride, which harkens back to the origins of this film franchise.

Much of the movie is kept as needlessly complicated - not terribly sophisticated, but rather complicated. Turner is attempting to rescue his father from the Flying Dutchman, Barbossa is looking to pay off a debt to Tia Dalma, Jack believes by slaying Davy Jones he may achieve an immortality of sorts and Swann is motivated by guilt and revenge.

This is a good enough place as any to mention what I found most troubling about At World's End - other than that it felt long. None of the characters in this film are particularly compelling because not one of the major characters is dependent upon themselves, their abilities or their talents for their destiny. All of the characters are trapped by the machinations of others. To wit: Captain Sparrow needs the crew to rescue him, Barbossa is dependent upon Tia Dalma for his life, (Swann and Turner's lack of fate being in their hands is the result of decisions made very late in the film, so I will not ruin that), Calypso is dependent upon the pirate lords to set her free, and Davy Jones is completely extorted by anyone who menaces his heart. As a movie marketed especially toward young people (hence an initial opening with an 8 P.M. showing, as opposed to a midnight one), this is a fairly troubling theme. None of the characters control their own destiny; that's a terrible message to send to young people.

Aww, who cares? Despite the marketing toward young people, rewatching this film is likely only to disappoint the younger audiences. Why? It's not Jack Sparrow's movie. It's not Will Turner's film and it's not Elizabeth Swann's film. It's Barbossa's. Barbossa dominates the screen up until the moment Jack Sparrow first appears and he does not go quietly after that. Indeed, while I would bet that Barbossa has the greatest amount of screentime, I am virtually certain that Geoffrey Rush, who plays Barbossa, outnumbers every other actor for sheer number of lines. It is charged to Rush to explain much of the machinations and the movie and he is in almost every scene Sparrow is in, plus far more at the beginning.

Rush lives up to the challenge of acting here and on this outing he is unlike any other character he has ever played as Barbossa. Rush has an eccentric quality that he lets run wild in this film and his pirate accent is flawless and well-delivered. As well, Rush - whose character gives a great deal of exposition - is able to explain much of the plot-heavy movie with credibility and authority that does not drag down the pace of the film significantly.

Chow Yun-Fat appears as Sao Feng, but his role is more like a cameo and his character seems very much like Lando Calrissian from The Empire Strikes Back (reviewed here!). In fact, the troubling aspect about the attempted complexity of the plot is that as I watched At World's End, I began to feel that it felt familiar and it did not take long to place it. The level of politicization and the complexity of the machinations and explanations was almost beat by beat identical to Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (reviewed here!). Indeed, after Sparrow is rescued, Turner and Swann occupy a plot much like that of Anakin and Padme, Sparrow and Barbossa begin machinations like the politics of the Jedi trying to unravel the Kamino mystery, with Davy Jones occupying a role frighteningly close to that of Count Dooku. Scary.

Sadly, director Gore Verbinski telegraphs the action in At World's End far more than George Lucas did in Attack Of The Clones. The fight sequences in the climax of the movie set up all of the elements in ways that only a child is likely to be surprised by the sequence that follows.

Part of the problem is the same Disney conceits that plagued the first two films, only in this outing, Verbinski and writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio take it even further. I refer to the annoying Disney sidekick conceit. In The Curse Of The Black Pearl, Pintel and Ragetti were introduced as sidekicks for comic relief (holding the same essential role as, say, Timon and Pumbaa in The Lion King). We get that Disney likes to make ridiculous pairs whose purpose is to have asides to explain plot to children and provide comic relief and we understand that Pirates Of The Caribbean is a Disney film. In At World's End, though, the viewer is plagued by the pairs of Pintel and Ragetti, Cotton's parrot and Barbossa's monkey Jack, and two officers from the East India Company who are guarding Jones's heart. Indeed, the only point to the latter two I could find was as a "play ball or you'll be replaced in the next sequel" implied threat to actors Lee Arenberg (Pintel) and Mackenzie Cook (Ragetti).

Beyond all that, though, the film is entertaining. The special effects, while not terribly new or original, are decent. They happen at a speed that is easy to assimilate and they all make sense given the physics and "reality" of the world created in this film.

Johnny Depp, despite taking the back seat to Geoffrey Rush, is entertaining and in this outing he is more purely eccentric and comedic. Depp has more conservative body language this time out and he plays the character as more consistent, lessening the general crazy of Sparrow for a more specific crazy created by his isolation in Davy Jones's locker. Depp is cool and collected much of the movie and his performance is more consistent and his sense of comic timing is much sharper and less cliché.

Both Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley appear in At World's End and they do nothing with their performances that we've not seen before. Indeed, Bloom trips over one of his best, most poignant lines, early in the film about the nature of trust. In the end, their performances resonate equal or less than the cameo by Keith Richards.

Now on 2-Disc DVD, At World's End looks and sounds great and the set is loaded with featurettes about the making of the film and the impact of the franchise. For those who missed the post-credits scene, the DVD is a great place to catch it. Especially noteworthy in the bonus features is the featurette painstakingly detailing the making of the Maelstrom scene. There are also deleted scenes and bloopers to give fans even more to love. Fans will also enjoy the behind-the-scenes presentation of the shooting of Keith Richards' footage. In many ways, the DVD presentation enhances the film and outshines the primary content.

In the end, it is entertaining and it's just enough to recommend the film, regardless of how long the film feels.

For other Disney live-action films, please check out my reviews of:
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Alice In Wonderland
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
Tron

6/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |