Pirates of The Caribbean On Stanger Tides

Announcement
I've had a couple of people from my classes tell me that they watched the video review I posted on "Thor", but they did not find time to read any of the other movie postings. So what I'm going to do for this entry is write a few comments and also post a video review so that both parts of my brain get a little exercise. I hope that will also encourage some of you to try both formats as you follow along. Maybe you can leave a comment about how you perceive the two media differently.










Review/Comments

In 2003, I looked forward to the original pirates immensely. Other theme park movies had not worked but "Pirates" was going to be different. It was a natural adventure film, with a swashbuckling theme, backed by some supernatural influences. As a kid, the pirates ride at Disneyland had always been my favorite. I remember going in 1967, and my great grandmother being wheeled to the exit side of the line to wait for us and then helping her in and out of the gondola for the ride. She was in her 80's at the time, but everyone wanted her to be part of the adventure. I was not disappointed one bit by the film version, which had a magnificent performance from Johnny Depp as the quirky lead character. This movie had surprises and also felt familiar. I know I saw it several more times in theaters and it was on my top five list for that year. When the film succeeded so well that two sequels were announced, I also had high hopes. As everyone already knows, the follow ups were not as endearing, charming or memorable as the first. There were some terrific sequences and characters. I think Davey Jones is an amazing synthesis of actor and CGI. The three way sword fight was ingeniously choreographed. At the end of Dead Man's Chest, when Captain Barbosa is returned from the dead, although it made no sense, I felt a thrill in anticipation of the third movie. Both "Dead Man's Chest" and "At World's End" were bloated, at times incoherent, and ultimately mildly entertaining but letdowns. The story line was wrapped up and we had a Trilogy that did not feel organic but it did feel complete.

Here we are, five years after the last of the pirates movies and Captain Jack Sparrow is back for another episode. The character remains fun, but in "On Stranger Tides", he is overwhelmed by a story that should take an hour and a half to tell but instead takes almost two and a half. Much of it is shot in the dark, which is probably needed to make the 3-D images pop more clearly. It has many of the same problems that the two sequels had, too many shifts in loyalties and uncertain rules for the supernatural elements. It often feels like it is being made up as we go along. That is not a bad thing if you are playing pirates but if you are making a movie, the structure of the story should drive the action rather than the other way around.

Don't despair me hearties, there is still plenty to enjoy in this new adventure, but it is not the return to the sharp movie making found in the original film. The action is fine, there is a nice daylight chase though London on carriage tops that was reminiscent of a similar chase scene in "Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother" back in 1975. The murkiness of the settings undermines the sword duels in the first two thirds of the movie, but you do get a pretty good fight near the end of the film. Again, there are some clever escapes and humorous bits of by-play in the action sequences, but they are not set up as well as the theft of the English Ship in the original pirates, and they often make less logical sense than the sneaking around that dominated the third film. The Mermaid attack sequence is very nicely shot however, and it does have some of the charm that we got from the skeleton crew in "The Black Pearl".

The three biggest assets besides Johnny Depp in the character he will always be referred to as in his obituary, are Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane and once again Geoffrey Rush. A couple of years ago I saw "Nine" with Ms. Cruz, and well I had always thought she was beautiful, it was there that I saw how sexy she could be. She brings a lot of sex appeal to the film, but we need more by play and story focus on her and Captain Jack. Ian McShane, looks the part of Blackbeard like no one else, but he needs a little more development as well. There is an element of supernatural about him that is not really explained and seems to exist only to allow a couple of set pieces and a story element to work. Geoffrey Rush, basically can do no wrong. His character is still black-hearted, but now he has a vengeance story line that makes the last third of the picture work. Rush was great in "The King's Speech" which won the academy award this year. I saw "Mystery Men" on the satellite a couple of days ago and he was great in it. I get the feeling, he is just damn good at what he does. In this movie, what he does is bring the story to life and make it a real pirate film rather than just a zombie, mermaid, action adventure.

I enjoyed the movie but I did not love it like I did the first film. I miss some of the characters that added charm in the original trilogy, not Will and Elizabeth, but the background pirates and soldiers. There was one character piece in this film that was not a featured player. One of the pirates plays and sings and his interaction with the mermaids adds to the fun in the movie. We needed sharper bits of humor like this from all of the players and a much tighter rein on the storytelling. This movie will do good business, and maybe they will follow through on the plot threads that set up more sequels. I can tell you though, no one will be sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for that to happen, and if it doesn't, no one will really miss it.

They May Be All Right, But Are Kids Running Away From the Multiplex? | The Wrap Movies

They May Be All Right, But Are Kids Running Away From the Multiplex? | The Wrap Movies

This story scares me because it follows several recent experiences that made me feel like the movies might be trending down. The multiplex I usually go to has dropped 13 of their 30 screens. The theaters never seem to be packed. The time waiting in line at the concession stand is usually complicated orders and slow service rather than long lines. There are not a lot of movies that people are passionate about. And movies are on DVD/Blu-Ray, just weeks after they play in theaters. The narrow windows are another contributing factor. Heaven help us.

Bridesmaids

I will have to surrender my "mancard" for seeing this film. All you have to do is look at the poster and you know this movie was not made for any guy. This is clearly a chick flick, but one that has been danced up with sufficient raunchy humor that a man can see it with his date and not feel like a total sell out. Truth be told, my "man" status has been in doubt for years because I love musicals and thought "27 Dresses" was charming. This film meets the usual standards for a chick flick, but with some very funny twists along the way. I don't know how it can be a complete girl film when one of the main pieces of humor is based on bathroom material that would mostly please an eight year old.

As I write this, I must say that I am probably something of a pig for the next comment, and I apologize. Maya Rudolph, who plays the bride to be in this movie,is not an attractive woman. She is interesting, but there is something about her that makes me want to get to the jokes quicker and spend less time in her company. Kristen Wiig, the star of the movie is not unattractive but she is definitely on the lesser side of the glamorous scale. While she might disagree with me on my assessment of Rudolph, I know she clearly sees herself in that "average not beautiful" mode because of the character she has written for herself. One of the things that sells this movie is that the people that populate it are for the most part, not "movie star" attractive, but average to less than average looking characters. The rest of us that fit into the same category are not going to be taken out of the film because the characters we are being asked to sympathize with are not so clearly better off that we sound like hypocrites for feeling their pain. Wiig's character actually conveys this feeling really well when she is first introduced to the antagonist character, a beautiful women who seemingly takes over the role of maid of honor from her fellow bridesmaid. The jealous visual summary and the quivering, self loathing vocal inflection, suggest immediately that she resents this woman. While in the long run the resentment boils over and is later moderated, we are still never given any reason to feel dramatically different. She is beautiful, and will get away with so much reprehensible behavior because her good looks let her slip by. Except we in the audience get to continue hating her for her behavior and her looks.

This movie will be widely viewed as a female version of "The Hangover". That is a pretty fair assessment, except the dude movie was plot driven and the chick flick is character driven. There are however a lot of parallels. For example, there is an oddball member of the wedding party, who is there because of a family connection rather than an organic friendship. Like in the guy film, this character ultimately helps reconcile plot points and relationships that get strained. Both characters are initially unappealing, but despite their weaknesses as human beings, they have a natural sweetness that overcomes all else. There is a trip to Vegas, but that is as far as I will go without spoiling some nice moments in the film. And, of course there are romantic moments for the ensemble characters that lead to happier moments than those with the original romantic partner of the character. I laughed at a lot of the jokes in this movie, but I did not have the same kind of gut wrenching laughter that I experienced in "The Hangover". There are differences in what can be funny for men or women, and here the differences have to do with the realities of the circumstances rather than the outrageousness of events.

An actress appears in the movie and for the longest time I kept thinking to myself, wow, she sure looks like Jill Clayburgh. I am sure I've seen her somewhere else. I know Clayburgh is dead so this other woman must be someone else. In the credits, there it is, "Jill Clayburgh". This has got to be her final film, and I did not hear any press about it or remember it being mentioned in her obits back in November. Having been a child of the 70s, she was an actress that I remember fondly and she was an important icon of the woman's movement. It's kind of nice she went out with a film so clearly driven by female sensibilities and she had a nice part as well. As usual, a movie that succeeds like this is supported by fantastic performers who are not the leads. The loutish bootie call buddy of Wiig's character is handsome Jon Hamm. There is a girl that goes toe to toe with Wiig's Annie in the jewelry store she works in, and she was great. The very familiar face of Richard Riehle shows up for a brief scene, but his voice and smile sell the idea planted by that scene really well.

My daughter is getting married in a month, her sister is the maid of honor, and I can tell you that there is plenty of tension going on that is mirrored in this movie. Anyone that has been close to the wedding preparations of someone close, will appreciate the humor and situations that pop up here. Some of the humor is painful, so be warned. I have a low tolerance for humor based on throwing up, because I am a sympathetic vomitter. There is one scene in "Stand By Me", "Monty Python's Meaning of Life", "The 40 Year old Virgin" and now this, that I have to close my eyes for. Most everyone else was laughing, I was gagging. You may cringe at some of the awkward moments, but you will also recognize them as being based in the truth. I expect the wedding next month will go more smoothly than in this film, but there will certainly be pain and laughter along the way.

Thor

http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif




A Video Blog for This Entry in A Movie A Day.


http://youtu.be/-goYW5ibvhc

This is a You Tube Link if the above video fails in your device.

Is That Your Boy? Private William Hudson in Aliens

This was very entertaining and an interesting way to see the character develop.

Water for Elephants

I was going to try to see Atlas Shrugged Part 1 this weekend, but Allison my Ayn Rand follower did not show up today, and I remembered that I had promised my wife I would take her to see this. She is a "Twi-Hard" and so was drawn to the movie by Robert Pattinson, but she had also read the novel that the movie is based on and had very high expectations for Hal Holbrooke playing the older version of Pattinson's character. I liked the idea of a circus movie, since my family was involved in the live entertainment business and my Father played with circuses on numerous occasions. So there was a lot to live up to.

My biggest surprise was that our young actor acquitted himself quite well as the lead in the story. He does do a little too much of that smoldering burdened look, but that seemed appropriate for the part. I think it ended up that he was pretty well cast. The main focus of the story is set on the growing attraction between the lost soul young man and the star of the circus played by Reese Witherspoon. She is an accomplished actor and I have enjoyed her in other films but here she seems a little miscast. I think she is slightly too old for the part she is playing and there is something much to contemporary about her mannerisms. She did not detract from the film, but she is the first lead and she never really held the screen the way a star is supposed to.

As is often the case, the most memorable performance is turned in by the actor playing the heavy in the story. In this case it is Christoph Waltz, seen earlier this year in "The Green Hornet" as the bad guy, and last year indelibly as the Jew hunting Nazi in "Inglorious Basterds". I look forward to the day when he is cast in a different kind of part, but he was once again the center of attraction for a movie. His character can be immensely charming one moment and murderously obsessed the next. So clearly they cast for type and it works. As the delusional and autocratic ringmaster and absolute ruler of this 1931 circus, he is believable and very frightening. I think I need to read the book myself, because if the story in the film is correct, I can't understand why anyone would stick with this circus for more than a day. The brutality of the way of life seems far too great to sustain a long term commitment, even in the tough economic times of the depression. There is a parallel character in a movie from the 70's called "Emperor of the North". Ernest Borgnine is a sadistic railroad conductor, and the brutish means he uses to enforce his will reminded me of the tools used in this movie.While the Borgnine character was an unpleasant monster, Waltz's Gus, at least had some personality to compensate for his inhumanity.

The other big co-star of the movie is the elephant, Rosie, who becomes the fulcrum by which our hero is going to pry loose his lady love from her evil prince. The elephant is very sweet and shown as a clever animal that has been underestimated by nearly everyone. I won't spoil anything by telling you that Rosie gets some of the best scenes in the movie, especially in the climax of the story. Hal Holbrooke was fine, but I get the feeling his part was cut way back by the screenplay so that he basically becomes a bookend for the main plot. James Cameron got a lot of crap over the screenplay for "Titanic", but he made the character of old Rose a big part of the events of the film. Bookends don't get the kind of attention Gloria Stuart got for her part in that earlier romance. Mr. Holbrooke does very well with what he has been given but there was room for more depth in the part.

The music in the movie was well placed and there are two particular spots where the songs of the times are worked into the story very effectively. I'm sure there is CGI, but it was incidental to the storytelling, the background sets and the train came across as real places in time. The setting feels very much of the place and time it represents. There were several incidental characters that could have been stronger and made the story less of a potboiler, it basically ends up that they become scenery for the three main characters to move around during the romance. This was a solid adult romance that was not insulting to the audience. It had the potential to be much more, but the focus on the love story steps on the mood and setting of the film. Everyone did a good job with the film and audiences should enjoy it for what it is. To me though, much of the romance should derive from the circus atmosphere, and in the last half of the movie, that was missing. In baseball parlance the film is a ground rule double.

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

The actual title of this movie is "Pom Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold", I would not want them to be cheated out of their million dollar investment by my omission of their sponsorship. That is the primary purpose of this movie, to explore the relationship between product marketing and the motion picture business. The conceit of the film is brilliant, the cost of making the movie will be covered by investors who are paying for product placement in a movie about how product placement gets done and the impact that it has. Morgan Spurlock the director of this film, is best known for the movie "Super Size" me. A movie that was equally creative in it's conception but from my point of view not nearly as entertaining. Having listened to speeches for almost ten years now that try to quote the narrative of a documentary as proof of claims, I've gotten a little tired of students seeing the material from the singular perspective of a provocateur like Spurlock or Michael Moore. The muckraking aspect of their films is the least appealing part of the movie.

This film contains some of those same elements. There are the usual talking heads that have insight that only they can manage to come up with. I about bust a gut when Noam Chomsky shows up in one scene blithering about capitalism and Morgan's soul. There are several other pieces that insert academics into the exposition of the process of marketing. Almost all of their intellectual analysis sounds like a parody of some academic double speak. I appreciate the need and desire for humans to ask questions about how things work and the attempt to interpret events in a manner that seems sound. I simply have little patience for the tortuous process that some University types go through to find a way to interpret the world through their shade of spectacles. The more relevant insights in this movie are provided by people that actually make movies, market products and produce goods that some of us might actually use. The "Channel One" controversy that showed up twenty years ago is repeated as a canard of capitalism run amok in the class room, brainwashing students to become mindless consumers. The high school students interviewed deconstruct this nonsense in about 30 seconds. They understand entirely what is going on and are such sophisticated consumers of information, they make the academic pundits sound positively ancient.

I wanted to get the negative parts of my reaction out of the way as quickly as possible so that the deck is clear for the rest of my comments. As much as I thought the talking heads of the scholars was silliness, the rest of the film works like gangbusters. The same points can be made by showing the process that is used to put products into a movie. Spurlock does exactly that, with more charm and charisma than most snake oil salesmen had more than 100 years ago. He is upfront about what he is trying to show and funny and thoughtful at the same time. He doesn't need Ralph Nader to make the points that come up, but he does need Nader to make the points humorous. He basically turns the high priest of consumerism into a shill for shoes. How's that for a piece of reductive analysis? His movie does exactly what he is talking about to one of the moralists that is preaching against this process. The Nader bit is not even the best example of this. Let me say that I will be flying Jet Blue whenever I can, just because of the one interview in this movie.

It takes a lot of people to put a movie together, all you have to do is look at the credits of any film (including this one) to see that hundreds make a contribution to what ultimately ends up on screen. The vision of a movie though is usually the responsibility of the director. Here the director and the star are the same person, so the focus is sharp and it is a chance to see how really involved the film maker is with the process. This guy is not a fluke. He did not get lucky with one great idea a few years ago with the concept of eating every meal at McDonalds for a month. In fact, this movie is not just another lucky stab in the dark either. When you watch how Morgan pitches his ideas, shows his advertising concepts and visualizes some sequences, it is clear this is a talented and creative man. His concepts for selling some of the products are so original and funny, I am sure he could be working for any of the big advertising firms in the country.

As a movie, these concepts are shown in creative ways that are pure cinema. When the fleet of Mini Coopers shows up, you will smile. Even something as simple as a talking head scene in a drug store becomes interesting, the way our hero puts it together. Maybe I am biased because outside of my work, the movies are where I put most of my focus. I am so worried right now about the future of motion pictures that it depresses me a little. Technology and a dearth of original material is draining the business of creativity. I like comic book movies but holy mackerel, we have a dozen super hero movies this year. I'm not sure that any movie series (with the exception of James Bond), should have several follow ups. This movie gives me hope. Not because the product placement issue is exposed ( which it really isn't, we are just much better informed about it then we were before) but because some one has had a creative idea and made it work.

There are at least a dozen big laughs in the movie, most of them intentional but a couple that may be unique to me (Noam Chomsky, really?). Even if you don't laugh out loud at all the things that are so ridiculous, you will smile at Spurlock's chutzpah and the enthusiasm he has for his own project. I did think there were too many forays into the political waters involving advertising. Did we really need a trip to South America to see the billboard ban in San Paolo? Overall though there is just too much fascinating behind the scenes content to be worried about the occasional burst of righteousness. The best part is that those hand wringers are not the film maker himself. He commits to the idea of the movie and lets the process of putting it together tell us the story. This is a fully satisfying comedy that takes down the pretensions of people on both sides and allows us to enjoy the process as a movie ought to do.

My daughter Amanda did an internship at a product placement firm. She is interested in working in this field. When I heard about the movie a year or so ago, I was interested but she seemed indifferent. Maybe she thought the movie was designed to blast the movie product placement business, or perhaps she is like me, a little worried that the field we immerse ourselves in was being attacked. She went with me last night to see this film. She enjoyed it nearly as much as I did. It is not a hard hitting expose of product and film marketing, it is a movie first. It raises issues that seem exaggerated to me, but that others deeply care about. If you want your documentary to be polemic, there is enough to satisfy you here. On the other hand, if you want to be entertained and learn some things along the way, this is right up your alley.