Disney Tries (Again) To Maintain Their Pirates Audience With The Lone Ranger!

The Good: Visually enjoyable, William Fichtner
The Bad: Unimaginative performances, Dull plot, Feels long
The Basics: With The Lone Ranger, Disney and Gore Verbinski prove that successful Disney live action adventure movies need more than Johnny Depp and special effects to succeed.


Disney has a strong history of finding what works and milking it until it is bone dry (and the remnants bear little resemblance to the once-noteworthy original work that spawned the franchise). When they hit it big with Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl (reviewed here!), they created a franchise that it is virtually certain they are not done tapping. But, shrewd as they were, the executives at Disney could not duplicate the successful elements of the Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise with either Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time (reviewed here!) or John Carter (reviewed here!). So, in going back to the well, it is somewhat unsurprising that they would try for a new franchise that reteams Gore Verbinski (the Pirates director) and Johnny Depp (the franchise’s star). The result is The Lone Ranger.

Even more than the thin plot unified that drags the viewer from one exceedingly bloody encounter to another (very hard PG-13 here!), The Lone Ranger seems like a particularly desperate attempt to make something that viewers might want to keep returning to. They fail. There is nothing particularly original about The Lone Ranger, the peril Tonto is put in is undermined entirely by the narrative technique (which has an aged Tonto telling his story to a boy from a point many years in the future) and it lacks a zest or spark to set it apart from other, already beloved films that have Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter acting goofy. Given the comparatively short resume of Armie Hammer, who plays the title role, it is unsurprising that Tonto dominates the film in order to capitalize on the celebrity of Johnny Depp.

Unfortunately, Depp’s performance has more in common with his character from Dead Man (reviewed here!) than the quotable and wacky Jack Sparrow.

Recounted by Tonto, John Reid – a Harvard lawyer who has come out to the frontier – is with his brother and a group of Rangers when they are ambushed by Butch Cavendish. Cavendish is brutal and rumored to be a cannibal and his attack on Reid and his party confirms his reputation. It is Tonto who rescues John Reid and convinces the young man to don a mask to protect himself and those close to him if he insists on pursuing Cavendish (which Reid does). With his brother dead, nephew and sister-in-law captured, Reid has strong motivation to track down Cavendish. Together, Tonto and the Lone Ranger begin a hunt for Cavendish and his gang.

On the way, they get clues and meet with minor obstacles from Latham Cole and Red Harrington as the negotiate the wild frontier. In avoiding both U.S. military forces and native warriors, Tonto and the Lone Ranger, with their trusty steed Silver, are put on the path to avenge the wronged and save Reid’s remaining family.

The Lone Ranger suffers – in addition from being excessively, often needlessly, bloody – in that it rambles along feeling every minute of the two and a half hours that it is. It lacks real social commentary, despite having the greedy railroad tycoon (Cole, played plausibly enough by master Tom Wilkinson)and a budding conflict between the U.S. and natives. Instead, it focuses on making cheap shots at the inexperienced Reid and occasionally reminding the viewer just how ruthless Cavendish is (he is not one who would team up with the allies in a sequel a la Barbosa in Pirates).

Therein lies one of the few saving graces in The Lone Ranger: William Fichtner as Butch Cavendish. Fichtner is a wonderful character actor and in The Lone Ranger, he presents scene-stealing villainy as the antagonist. Fichtner has a way of setting his eyes that makes them cold and embody evil in a way few actors can. As Cavendish, Fichtner illustrates just how creepy and mean his performances can be and there is not a moment that he appears on screen that the viewer does not fully believe they are watching a stone-cold killer at work.

By contrast, Armie Hammer gives a very white bread performance as John Reid. While he seems fine for the fight sequences, he is bland otherwise as the Lone Ranger. Similarly, Verbinski all but labels Johnny Depp as the point of The Lone Ranger remake by giving him frequent moments that have the actor emoting his disdain, surprise or disappointment with his eyes (mostly for comic effect). The Lone Ranger is a somewhat less talkative Jack Sparrow stuck in the desert and Depp’s performance is not only unsurprising, it is largely uninteresting.

Sadly, that is the state of the entire film The Lone Ranger.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
Oz The Great And Powerful
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Alice In Wonderland
Old Dogs
G-Force
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron

3.5/10

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

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Not The Most Compelling Story Backs An Incredibly-Animated Film With Rango!

The Good: Decent animation, Good voice performances
The Bad: Predictable plot, Very obvious character arcs
The Basics: Rango is a surprise winner for Best Animated Film, considering it is a very obvious Western.


It is a rare thing for me to sit down to a film from Nickelodeon Films, despite the fact that I truly enjoyed Hotel For Dogs (reviewed here!) from the company. So, when my wife’s family came for a visit, it was somewhat surprising to all of us that I had Rango out from the library. I got out Rango for my wife, who tends to like animated films. I was unsurprised when she told me she actually watched Rango over the summer, but I was surprised when she informed me she did not actually enjoy it. But, given that she and I have different tastes in movies, I decided to watch the movie with my in-laws while she was at work anyway.

My wife was right.

Rango is a remarkably underwhelming, average-at-its-peak, movie that might have impressive animation, but not enough to back it up on the character and plot fronts. The animated film is a Western populated by animal characters and it is surprisingly unoriginal and lacking in humor needed to sustain an animated film.

As part of a move, a domesticated lizard is keeping himself occupied in his aquarium, making theatrical presentations to keep himself entertained, when the car swerves and the aquarium goes flying. The lizard ends up on the road, then after a near-death experience, lost in the desert. Chased by a redtail hawk, the lizard ends up running into the small town of Dirt. There, he begins bragging about how he has killed the local villainous gang (with one bullet) and he takes the name Rango. Having befriended a lonely woman named Beans, Rango’s bragging and posturing earns him the role of Sherriff in the town of Dirt.

As Sherriff, Rango vows to discover how the bank is running out of water. He quickly uncovers a plot by a family of thieves. After riding out and thwarting their plans, Rango is replaced by Rattlesnake Jake and he must come to rescue Dirt. Exposing the corrupt Mayor, Rango risks life and limb to bring water back to Dirt.

Rango is a Johnny Depp vehicle and it is hard to see how the film did any business outside his fan base. The animation is well-rendered and all of the animals look good and move with a surprisingly realistic sense of physics. The character designs are very cool for the lizards, scorpions, turtle, cat, and bats; Rango has a vivid visual palate.

Unfortunately, effects are a small portion of evaluating a film and Rango is not backed up by an interesting series of characters or a remotely good plot. Movies like this usually trade on having great lines that are enough to amuse adults, but Rango lacks anything so clever. The characters are unmemorable and the plot is predictable.

The vocal performances are decent, though Johnny Depp does not present anything that viewers have not seen or heard from him before. Backed by talents like Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Abigail Breslin, and Alfred Molina, the characters in Rango are expressive, if not impressive.

Now on DVD and Blu-Ray, Rango includes an alternate ending, two different versions, and ten deleted scenes. None of that makes it worth buying.

For other works with Isla Fisher, please check out my reviews of:
Rise Of The Guardians
Confessions Of A Shopaholic
Definitely, Maybe
Scooby-Doo

3/10

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

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

Ringing In My Eyes: The Ring Leaves Me Unimpressed.

The Good: The first few minutes
The Bad: Terrible acting, Pointless ending, Lack of empathetic characters, Dull plot, Pacing
The Basics: When a series of deaths is tied to a mysterious video tape, an investigative reporter risks her life to solve the mystery of the killer in The Ring. Yippee.


A few years ago, I was at a Star Trek convention and a promoter for a film studio was present giving out promotional items like posters and buttons and such. At the end of the weekend, he dipped into his box of things and pulled out a lone video tape. My assistant at the convention was given the tape, though the promoter had no idea what was on it. I took the tape home and watched it. What it appeared to be was a crazy, German expressionist type video with more in common with a Danzig video than anything else. At the end of the weird and creepy tape, there was a URL and, slightly grossed out by the home video, I dutifully went there. At the site, I was informed that I had a week left to live and that the tape had contained things like hypnotic suggestions and my days were numbered. I was outraged and a little freaked out. My partner and I spent the week that followed with "I only have x days left, so what the heck?" as a continual punchline. It wasn't until The Ring came out later in the year that I realized this was just a poorly made advertising tool (the website did not mention the movie at all).

So, a few days ago, I got The Ring out of the library to see what all of the hype was about. It's too bad I did; the idea of it was much more interesting.

The Ring follows the investigation of Rachel Keller, a reporter who bothers to investigate the death of her niece (I say "bother" because it seems the police are absent in the film, leaving the detective work to an investigative reporter) at the hands of a video tape. Rachel gets her hands on a copy of the video that her niece watched that supposedly kills people seven days after seeing it. Rachel then watches the tape and becomes obsessed with discovering its cryptic meaning before she is slain. Her quest to learn the truth leads her to a strange little dead girl who appears to be killing from beyond the grave using the video as a gateway into the real world.

The first problem with The Ring is its largest. None of the characters are at all interesting. Rachel is dull and her devotion to discovering what killed her niece seems misplaced given how much she neglects her own son. Her character is riddled - like the movie - by a series of stupid contradictions. For example, Rachel instantly believes in the power of the video to kill, given that all the people who watched it with her niece died at the same time, yet she leaves the video around the house where her son could - and does - watch it. Moreover, she steals the video from a cottage in the woods when the owner of the cottages tells her she is welcome to borrow any of the videos in the library. It seems pointless that she makes the effort to conceal her taking the video off the shelf when it is freely offered.

Rachel's character is not the only uninteresting one that fails to engage us. Indeed, none of the characters seem worthy of saving and as the film plods along, one wonders why any of them even bother. Rachel's son, Aidan, lacks any character and Noah, her ex-husband, seems strangely devoted to a woman he couldn't stay married with. Richard Morgan, one of the characters at the flashpoint of the killer girl's supernatural existence, is unfathomably driven in the movie to do what he does. His motivation seems forced and his exit from the movie is met with more dispassion than anything else.

The saddest thing about The Ring is that it utilizes a couple of decent actors and does nothing with them. The wonderful Brian Cox, who portrays Richard Morgan, is underutilized in a role that does not take advantage of his range or force him to use his full ability as an emotive actor. Instead, his performance is bland and confused.

Naomi Watts, who helped make the confusing Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!) watchable, is similarly wasted in The Ring. The entire movie becomes a countdown to Rachel's potential death and as it nears, Watts does nothing to endear the viewer to her character. So, as the countdown goes on, there is no real sense of menace because the viewer doesn't care about her character. Watts simply shows up and moves around the screen, doing little beyond that to present Rachel as an actual person with any significant backstory or interesting life.

The Ring culminates in one of the most pointless lines in cinematic history. Given that Rachel succeeds in unraveling the mystery of the video tape, why she does not use the same diligence to destroy any copies of the video is a bigger mystery than the one that inspired the film. In the end, The Ring lacks any real sense of tension, a single decent character to care about and fails to use the talents of any of the actors employed in it. Whatever arguments might be made for this, it is not a true horror; there is nothing scary about it. If you want scary, take a week where you think you've actually seen a video that will kill you, at least then you'll be afraid for someone you care about.

For other horror movies, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Wrong Turn
28 Days Later
Daybreakers

.5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 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.
| | |

Nothing New Under The Sea Sinks Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

The Good: Special effects, Moments of acting, Moments of character
The Bad: It's been done before, in Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl!
The Basics: While not terrible, Dead Man's Chest is nothing particularly new for those who have seen Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl.


The best sequels do more than continue a story. I recognize I'm coming late to the phenomenon that is Pirates Of The Caribbean as it took me quite some time to see and review The Curse Of The Black Pearl (reviewed here!), but I always try to watch movies outside their hype. Sequels, when I review them, need to work both as a self-contained movie and as continuation of a larger story. Three of the best sequels that come instantly to mind are The Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan, and The Two Towers. The worst sequel that come instantly into my head is The Whole Ten Yards. And Batman And Robin (for the apples to apples comparison). Never forget how bad Batman And Robin was. Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is no Batman and Robin, but it's no Wrath Of Khan either.

Stood up on her wedding day, Elizabeth Swann discovers her fiancee, Will Turner, has been arrested for abetting a pirate and she soon shares his fate. Compelled to find Captain Jack Sparrow and his compass, Turner and Swann separately head to the seas. Jack Sparrow, for his part, finds himself at the mercy of Davy Jones, a squidlike captain of the Flying Dutchman, a ship full of cursed men who are being claimed by the sea. Sparrow's debt compels him to harvest others while he attempts to get the key to Davy Jones's locker, which will allow him to turn the tables on Jones.

From the outset, Dead Man's Chest suffers terribly on plot from the character aspects. From the moment Jack Sparrow reveals that he is looking for a key to Davy Jones's chest, the movie has mortgaged itself. Sparrow needs a key and he's using Will Turner to get it. He knows what he's looking for because he has an imprint of it, like a shroud with a stain in the exact shape of the key. Sparrow, ridiculously, leaves Turner at the mercy of Jones on the hope that Turner might end up with the key. Anyone who was even mildly awake during The Curse Of The Black Pearl ought to be able by now to see the critical fault of Dead Man's Chest and how the plot is unnecessarily complicated based on who the characters are.

For those not with the program: Will Turner is a blacksmith. Sparrow has an imprint of the key, essentially the blueprint. Turner is compelled to get Sparrow's compass, all Sparrow needed to do was give Turner the shroud and have him MAKE A KEY! Bam, movie's over. Turner makes a key, Sparrow recovers the chest, the day is won.

But no, that's not what happens.

If you're reading this review and it never occurred to you that Sparrow could have simply asked Turner to make a copy of the key to open Davy Jones' chest, that's all right. It's not all right that this concept did not seem to occur to screenwriters Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio or director Gore Verbinski or even - apparently in a meaningful way - to actor Orlando Bloom, who plays Will Turner.

This is a long movie, about two and one half hours. A significant portion of that is spent trying to find the key to open the box. To make clearer; this is an overcomplicated movie for the story being told. From the outset of the concept, it makes little sense.

Sigh.

So, everyone is using someone else, everyone in Dead Man's Chest is being extorted. Boo hoo. We saw that before in innumerable movies, including the previous Pirates Of The Caribbean. What is so disappointing about Dead Man's Chest is there's nothing truly new. Outside Davy Jones and Tia Dalma, there are no new characters of note.

Which leads us to the special effects. The danger of making a special effects movie is that in order to truly sell it, one needs to do something different with special effects, something that pushes the envelope of what has already been done. As a good example of this, I'll use the Star Wars prequels to illustrate succession. In The Phantom Menace there is Jar-Jar Binks and the podrace (a digital character and one big scene of spectacle that is mostly computer generated), in Attack Of The Clones there is the digital Yoda, the Clone Troopers, and the final battle sequence (a previously live-action character recreated as a digital, completely digital characters and an even bigger spectacle including entire shots that only exist on computer) and in Revenge Of The Sith there is the opening space battle, the fight between the digital Palpatine and digital Yoda and the incredibly long sequence of the lightsaber battle between Vader and Kenobi (entire digital realms, combination digital/live action and sequences where the reality and CGI have to flawlessly swap between one another while working with entirely digital backgrounds). Right or wrong, Lucasfilm escalates in each Episode to continue pushing the technology (and story) forward. Dead Man's Chest does not do that.

Sure, Davy Jones' crew is all manner of sea-people. That's cool, it's interesting, it looks good (generally), but it's not essentially new. A lot of the shots look similar to the undead crew from The Curse Of The Black Pearl. The argument could go that this episode has the Kraken, Davy Jones's giant sea creature. There is that. It, however, feels very familiar (probably because in the final shots of the movie, it looks like the Sarlaac from Return Of The Jedi) and is also not a terribly impressive effect. The tentacles of the kraken often suffer from the "Gladiator tiger effect." In Gladiator there is a digitally created tiger that suffers because it is lit as if lit from all angles. The tentacles are similar, becoming bright purple enemies that look completely unreal.

My final plot note is one I wish I could share, but it would spoil the movie for the three people reading this review who have not yet seen Dead Man's Chest. Sufficed to say, in fighting the kraken, various tactics are employed and the final assault on the creature makes little sense given the subsequent scenes. For characters who are manipulating one another constantly, they aren't terribly tactically gifted.

That said, much of what was enjoyable in the first movie is still enjoyable here. There are moments where the movie is tongue in cheek; for example, the crew of the Black Pearl finds themselves captured by cannibals when Sparrow flees Davy Jones. There are two groups of captives: all of the recognizable characters from the Black Pearl and the other group (with conspicuously black characters).

The acting is as blasé in Dead Man's Chest as it was in The Curse Of The Black Pearl, with Bloom and Knightley continuing to underwhelm. Jonathan Pryce continues his underused, but decent, portrayal of the now-disgraced Governor Weatherby Swann. The lone pleasant acting addition is Naomie Harris (who I enjoyed quite a bit in 28 Days Later) who has what amounts to a cameo as Tia Dalma. And on the character front, Pintel and Ragetti return to fulfill their Disney-standard role, with Ragetti going so far as to explain the plot, which is disappointing.

Thus, much of the movie comes down to whether Davy Jones and Jack Sparrow can sell the audience on seeing the film. Davy Jones is sad and lonely - he keeps a locket on his piano - and villainous. Jones is played by Bill Nighy, though all trace of the actor is digitally erased in order to create the creature effect. Nighy is a talented actor, but there is nothing that screams "Nighy!" left in his portrayal of Davy Jones, making it hard to comment on the acting. The character is fairly monolithic and it is not evident why he wants his entire crew to slowly transform into sea life aboard the Flying Dutchman.

Which brings us to Captain Jack Sparrow and Johnny Depp. Sparrow is pretty much the same as he was in the first movie. He's a pirate, conniving, selfish and humorous to watch. But he's not more. The revelation of how the compass works is unsurprising given how Sparrow feels about his ship, though it does make the resolution to the movie make less sense. Depp's portrayal of Sparrow is consistent. There's nothing truly new here in the portrayal.

That's the best way to sum up Dead Man's Chest. It's not new. It doesn't grow the characters, it does not progress the effects, it does not challenge the viewer in any meaningful way. It sets up the third movie completely and that's about it.

It left me wanting more.

For other films featuring Keira Knightley, please check out my reviews of:
Love Actually
Star Wars – Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

4.5/10

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

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

Standard Check: Reviewing Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl As A Litmus Test For A Reviewer!

The Good: Fun, Decent plot, Moments of acting, Moments of character, Special effects, Music
The Bad: Some predictability, Sparrow not as eccentric as I'd heard, Disney “standards"
The Basics: Fun and entertaining, The Curse Of The Black Pearl opens a new chapter in action-adventure/comedy and is worthy of a viewing, if not to own.


Sometimes, there is little point in writing a review. When I was still writing for the review website, I would occasionally look back at some of my older reviews that were buried under the 300 other reviews of the same film/product and I’d know that they are not being read. There is no point in writing a decent review for older material after twenty people have rated it. I can only imagine that there aren't people who look through the lists of reviews looking for an obscure reviewer. And, let's be honest, with some of the pop-culture standards like Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl, 99% of the movie-going public has already made up its mind, watched it or not and a review now is not going to sway someone. I doubt there is someone reading this review –in my brand spankin’ new blog - and saying, "Hmm . . .Pirates Of The Caribbean, I wonder if THAT'S a movie I would enjoy . . ." So, writing this review is somewhat pointless, save that reviews of well-reviewed works by some of us more obscure reviewers provides a baseline for our reviews on less-well-reviewed works. This review helps readers understand that my pantheon of reviews means. What does my 10/10 rating for Magnolia (reviewed here!) truly mean, if you can't compare it to something you've likely already seen? As important, what does my 0/10 rating for Did You Hear About The Morgans? (reviewed here!) or "Wrong Turn" truly mean if you can't compare it to another movie that is probably not as meaningful or well-known? And so . . .

When Disney announced that it was making a film based on their ride Pirates Of The Caribbean, I cringed. Some part of my mind was terrified that if it was successful, they would find a way to make their "Small World" ride into a movie complete with hypnotic, cult-indoctrinating theme and I would be forced into the killing spree I kept myself from as a child when visiting Disney World. Writers Ted Elliot, Terry Rossio, Stuart Beattie, and Jay Wolpert and director Gore Verbinski take a potentially deathly idea and create an entertaining comedy-adventure movie that succeeds beyond its concept.

As a child, young Will Turner is rescued from a pirate attack by a crew which includes Elizabeth Swann, who takes from him a necklace with a gold dubloon. Years later, as Turner pines for Swann and Swann - the local governor's daughter - avoids the advances and proposals of naval Commodore Norrington, the port they live in find themselves under siege by pirates who take Swann and head for the open sea. Desperate to recover the woman he loves, Turner enlists the aid of pirate captain Jack Sparrow, who is currently jailed in the port.

Sparrow and Turner steal a boat and head after the pirates that abducted Swann. They soon realize that the pirates are not normal, every day standard pirates. They are undead, cursed by stealing the gold and destined to roam the seas until all the pieces are back where they belong. Jack, who has a history with the ship - the Black Pearl - and its captain - the villainous Barbossa, uses the rescue attempt to gain revenge for wrongs done against him in the past and to recover the ship that used to be his.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl is entertaining and while I am not usually a fan of big special effects movies, the effects in this one are remarkably well done. The undead pirate crew is fun to watch and the effects move at a pace that makes them intriguing, easy to follow and of impressive quality. The effects are most prevalent at night, in moonlight, making it much easier to retain realism and the effects department seems quite attentive to this.

Similarly, the music is used quite well as an effect to keep the movie flowing. Whenever there is not a battle or significant dialogue, the music becomes sweeping and big to accompany the cinematography. Composers Klaus Badelt and Craig Eastman do fine work here using music as an effect.

What I like about The Curse Of The Black Pearl is that it is well put together. Things make sense and that is refreshing. So, those oriented to details will find much to enjoy about the movie. A nice example of this is that Sparrow's compass - when confiscated by the authorities - is noted as one that is not pointing North. It's not listed as "broken," just that it does not work like normal compasses. That becomes important and justifies the obsessive quality Jack has with preserving his personal effects.

This leads us to the characters. Given that this movie has been out in the public imagination for almost four years and already spawned one of the most successful sequels of all time - with another due this summer - there has been a lot of hype about the characters in The Curse Of The Black Pearl. That last sentence ought to be cut down; there has been a lot of hype about Captain Jack Sparrow. The best description anyone had given me before seeing The Curse Of The Black Pearl was that the movie works like two movies, with the standard pirate plot going in one predictable, regular direction, and one with the eccentric Jack Sparrow doing and saying things that are more winks to the audience.

I didn't see that. The Curse Of The Black Pearl only works because it does not take itself too seriously and the main force behind that is Captain Jack Sparrow, who - sadly - did not seem all that over-the-top to me. Sure, he's a crazy pirate, but he was hardly as funny or detached from the story or the other characters as I anticipated given the hype around him. Sparrow provides both comic relief and an opportunity to sell the idea of the treachery of the pirates. Sparrow works and he's what keeps the movie moving and entertaining.

Sadly, the more troubling character aspects come in two forms. The first is Captain Barbossa who is possibly the most subtle advertisement for Captain Morgan rum (how did they NOT do a tie-in here?!) and who is pretty much the villainous archetype. There seems to be no real connection to suggest why Sparrow would have had him as a member of his crew beforehand and little to suggest his ambition for a fleet of pirate ships once the curse is lifted. Morgan, er, Barbossa's big ambition to get the curse of the Aztec gold lifted is not so he won't be invincible, can wear decent clothes, or even make love to a woman. His ambition is to eat an apple. Fine, I can dig that. Man's been undead for a while, wants fresh fruit, cool. Why is it so easy for Sparrow to manipulate him with the prospect of more, then? It doesn't jive.

Far, far, far worse are the Disney influences on The Curse Of The Black Pearl, which I know is ironic for a Disney film. Disney has certain "kid friendly" standards that it keeps intact almost universally throughout its many animated and live-action films. Since Disney's rebirth of animated movies in the late '80s, early 90s, there have almost always been sidekicks for comic relief. Often they are a pair and their sole function in the movie is to make cheap gags, provide plot exposition for five year-olds and tell what the director isn't gifted enough to show or say what the writer cannot figure to say any other way. This might work in a "G" movie, but it's somewhat insulting in the PG-13 Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl.

In this movie, the pair is Pintel and Ragetti, undead pirates on Barbossa's ship, the latter of which is missing an eye. This witless pair explains pretty much everything, knocks into things and does things in an insultingly Disney way that most viewers are smart enough to figure out on their own or could live without.

That said, the rest of the characters are fairly standard. Elizabeth Swann is not a Disney princess, but rather the damsel in distress who at opportune moments can stand up for herself. Norrington is exceptionally generic as the "wealthy/successful suitor" that Swann should want and an adequate foil to Will Turner, down to how each uses objects in their surroundings. Turner almost always has his hands on something, Norrington gives orders to others, keeping his hands usually off the things he wants to manipulate.

And outside the characters, the action is pretty standard for a period piece like this. There are sword fights, people swinging on ropes, and the ship to ship battles involving cannon fire. The truth is, by the time this movie was made, it takes a lot to be a knockout with special effects battle scenes. The sword fights are living deep in the shadows of the battles from The Lord Of The Rings and Star Wars. It's just a factor of time, but there is nothing distinctive or great about them that pushes the envelope forward and the truth is, they are fairly unmemorable.

But they are entertaining. The swordfight between Turner and Sparrow is fun to watch. The stunts are decent, the pace is kept up well.

What makes The Curse Of The Black Pearl worth recommending and watching boils down ultimately is the acting. It's always wonderful to see Jonathan Pryce (save Carrington) and his role as Governor Weatherby Swann was one of the few pleasant surprises for me going into the movie. Orlando Bloom is fairly bland as Will Turner (there is nothing truly distinctive about him) and Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Swann continues her career as a photocopy of Winona Ryder. There is nothing here to recommend her performance as anything extraordinary.

So, it comes to Geoffrey Rush and Johnny Depp to sell The Curse Of The Black Pearl. And they do. Rush is playing the villainous Barbossa and while the character is problematic, Rush plays him well. There are moments where Barbossa must maintain a tired quality where his imprisonment as an undead wears on him and those moments Rush sells us on some form of underlying humanity in the character. And when he needs to be bad, Rush sells us on that with his icy gaze and menacing tones.

It is Johnny Depp that rules the movie, as Jack Sparrow. What Depp does - better than the character in some ways - is sell the idea that Sparrow is not necessarily crazy or not part of the world, but rather that in order to live the life the Captain is living, he has to act the way he does. Depp is adept at the fast-talk, the quick reversal and the physical comedy needed to keep The Curse Of The Black Pearl moving and from taking itself too seriously.

In the end, The Curse Of The Black Pearl is a pirate movie that is effectively mixing comedy and adventure to be something worthwhile and entertaining. But it's not saying something larger and its quality is in entertainment value, primarily in the form of the two biggest characters in the movie - Sparrow and Barbossa. If you want fun, this'll do.

But don't expect more.

For other films featuring Johnny Depp, please visit my reviews of:
The Tourist
Alice In Wonderland
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
Edward Scissorhands

5.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page!

© 2010, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |