Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

OPENING: 05/20/2011

STUDIO: Disney Films

RUN TIME: 137 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
In the fourth Pirates opus, Jack’s back. But can this new story under a new helmer be as good as its predecessors?

Opening Statement
There are many people who love the initial entry of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, although seeing the awfulness that was The Country Bears and knowing that The Haunted Mansion was soon to follow, Pirates just seemed like a similar ploy for Disney to pillage their old tourist attractions and try to eke out a few doubloons. However, Pirates found a savior in Johnny Depp and his oddly mannered but oddly alluring Jack Sparrow. He is still the best reason to watch any of the three (now four) Pirates films. He has carved out for himself a place on the list of greatest characters ever committed to celluloid. The success of Pirates led to the inevitable sequels and the unavoidable franchise that developed. Most said the films that followed the first Pirates installment were unfocused and bloated, a CGI discordance. I however find their breadth and scope, the imagination and the gutsy-ness it took to bring these stories to the screen, both amazing and inspiring. The fourth film, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, is a worthy successor into the further adventures of Captain Jack Sparrow.

Facts of the Case
Jack finds himself crossing wits and swords with a lady from his past, the mysterious Angelica (Penelope Cruz). She takes him on board the Queen Anne’s Revenge, ship of the brutal and unjust pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and becomes embroiled in a search for the Fountain of Youth. This is a race to see who gets there first. It is run between the Spaniards, Blackbeard’s crew and the indestructible Hector Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush) who is more concerned with revenge for his lost ship and his lost leg then after immortality. Along the way they must all contend with zombies, mermaids and all sorts of other devilry.

The Evidence
New to the series is director Rob Marshall, he of Nine, Memoirs of a Geisha and the Academy Award winning Chicago, taking over for Gore Verbinski, director of the first three Pirate films. He brings a new sensibility to this movie without taking anything away from what has been established before. As you can see from his filmography, Rob knows a thing or two about song and dance, and this plays into the newness he brings. On the previous iterations of Pirates, Jack got by and won battles on his wits, quick thinking and luck more then anything else. However, this time Rob choreographs the fight scenes like dance routines (Step-two-three-four, Stab-two-three-four) and as such Jack comes across as having somehow learned gymnastics and acrobatics and therefore having far more skill and grace then he’s ever shown before.

What Rob does not do away with, and that which I am glad he does not, is the brutality and the weight of the situations taking place. The Pirate films could have so easily become cartoon-like in their depictions of the life on the high seas, bloodless and play violence, especially under the guidance of the Disney machine. But Gore Verbinski did not shy away from showing a gutted old salt, a boy on the gallows or a sailor meeting his crushing demise under the tentacles of the Kraken and, thankfully, Mr. Marshall is not shy either. There is a scene near the end of the film where a whirlpool rips the flesh off a man’s bones. It brings with it the heft and punch it should…as well as a harkening back to a certain Last Crusade.

Rob brings along with him a couple of actresses he worked with on Nine; the first being Dame Judy Dench who makes a brief and comedic cameo as a society lady. The second is Penelope Cruz, teaming up with Depp for the first time since Blow, who I feel is miscast as the daughter of Blackbeard. She does not have the ruggedness of appearance or personality that we’ve seen in this series from other women of the sea, but instead has to try and balance a loyalty to her father that exposes her emotions with a hardness of heart towards all those she uses and manipulates. It is a disservice to both her as an actress and to the series. There is also a subplot that develops between a missionary and a mermaid (sounds like the beginning of a joke) that went on far too long and which also ended rather ambiguously for the poor missionary. I suppose the writers were trying desperately to fill the hole left by the expulsion of the Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly storyline, but really, any time away from Jack and his crew was time ill spent.

Closing Statement
Those small defects aside, this movie will join its three brothers on my DVD shelf. I was shown breathtaking sights that I could never have envisioned on my own. The film took me on a journey, an adventure, from one end of the world to the other, though perils and wonders with people I enjoy spending time with. The story expanded my imagination and brought into new light things that I previously thought I had already known. I had fun, and cannot ask for anything more from a film. Savvy?

The Verdict

8/10

The Tourist

OPENING: 12/10/2010

STUDIO: Spyglass Entertainment, GK Films

RUN TIME: 103 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The perfect trip, the perfect trap.

Opening Statement
The star power of Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp cannot make up for The Tourist, an enjoyable, but ultimately flaccid mess of a spy-thriller-come-comedy. There’s no story to speak of, only a cobbled together plot built around a bogus ending–you’ll decipher the “big twist” within the first reel. Watch out for that James Newton Howard score, though–it’s terrific!

Facts of the Case
Elise Clifton-Ward (Jolie) is a well known and mysterious woman who spends her days reading love letters from her equally mysterious beau Alexander Pierce. Problem is, the British government, led by a ruthless agent (Paul Bettany), has it out for Pierce–he stole two billion dollars from a gangster named Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff) and owes a ridiculous amount in back taxes–and will sacrifice anything and anyone to get to him.

Enter Frank Tupelo (Depp) an American tourist/Math teacher on his way to Italy for some much needed R&R. Unfortunately for him, Elise, in an attempt to convince the government that Frank is actually Pierce (to draw them off), kicks off a romantic flirtation and thus paints a target on the inept traveler’s back. Things turn dicey, however, when Shaw, convinced that Frank, in actuality, is truly Pierce in disguise, pops up with revenge on the mind, and will likewise do anything and everything to bring him in.

The Evidence
I saw The Tourist a few days ago and still haven’t quite mustered up an opinion as to whether I liked it or not. The film has all of the right ingredients–star power/chemistry, an absurd (but passable) story, stunning locales, an Oscar worthy James Newton Howard score– and yet none of them mesh properly enough to warrant anything beyond a passive response. Did I enjoy the film? Sure. Was I bored? Not at all. Would I see it again? Probably not.

Director/co-writer Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck does well with his budget in terms of cinematography and setting. The film looks great, brimming with luscious, even vibrant Italian scenery and heart stopping vistas. Take out the stars and you have a plush travelogue video of Italy. Leave them in and you have a plush travelogue video of Italy starring Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp.

Perhaps that’s the problem with Donnersmarck’s flick: it’s too in love with the beautiful actors posing in front of the absorbing backdrops. Why else would The Tourist feature so many shots of Jolie (adorned in sexy, form hugging attire) walking to and fro, with nary an objective in sight, as though her presence were enough to sustain our interest for two hours? Indeed the opening sequence features the alluring actress drinking tea at one of those cozy, photo-op ready diners while government agents oogle her from inside their cover vehicle (at one point the camera even zooms in on her sashaying backside, such is the film’s objective). Instead of focusing on the plot, the audience takes in the exquisite sights: Look! It’s Angelina Jolie walking across the pier! What an outfit! Look! There’s Jolie standing elegantly atop a balcony! Get a load of that negligee! I half expected Joan Rivers to pop in and supply commentary.

Maybe the problem lies with the characters themselves. Frank and Elise are neither captivating, nor charismatic. We’re told Elise is dangerous, but she does little to validate such a claim. Frank, a high school math teacher, smokes fake cigarettes and wears funny pajamas. Otherwise he speaks in soft tones and acts less erratic than you might expect a man in Frank’s situation (or Depp for that matter) to behave. Mostly he joins the audience as they gawk at Jolie’s lithesome frame. “You look ravenous,” Frank tells Elise. “You mean ravishing,” she corrects. “I do,” he agrees. So do I.

Depp and Jolie make a terrific onscreen pair. The duo clearly has a ball chewing up Christopher McQuarrie’s (Valkerie) colorful dialogue, even if they appear less interested in the plot. Their chemistry is the only thing in the film that sizzles.

The Tourist is a movie that belongs in the 1950s, in a time when it was okay for films to feature actors standing around, or holding casual conversation; adoring audiences packed movie houses just to catch a glimpse of Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, or Cary Grant. Such were the times. Nowadays, as recent star studded turkeys Knight and Day and Killers will attest, star power has nothing over plot and structure, at least not to the general public.

Me? I like my spy-comedies fast and furious–Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) anyone? Unfortunately, The Tourist is anything but.

Closing Statement
Much like the similarly themed Knight and Day and Killers, The Tourist overestimates the appeal of its main stars, in this case Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp–who make a terrific onscreen pair, but have nothing to do.

The Verdict
6/10

Alice In Wonderland

OPENING: 03/05/2010

STUDIO: Disney

RUN TIME: 109 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
You’ve Got A Very Important Date.

Opening Statement
Alice In Wonderland‘s assortment of charming and kooky characters and breathtaking visuals and animation are well worth the price of admission. However, consider yourself forewarned. If you spend too much time only concentrating on the visual aspects of this film, you will be lost and confused trying to follow this story. Though not as bad as the book, there is a lot of nonsense and randomness throughout the entire movie, and entering the theatre without an open, thinking mind will result in you dismissing this film as nonsensical, when it really isn’t.

Facts of the Case
Alice Kingsley (Mia Wasikowska, Amelia) is without a doubt a spitting image of her father. Unsatisfied by living a typical, ordinary life, Alice dreams of remarkable, impossible things; she doesn’t want her life planned out for her like everybody else’s is. At a surprise engagement party for her, Alice notices a white rabbit (Michael Sheen, Frost/Nixon) dressed strangely in a waistcoat turning a corner. Intrigued by this strange sight, Alice goes to follow him, but in the process falls down a rabbit hole and ends up in the whimsical land called Underland.

She eventually makes zany new acquaintances, all who remember her from a previous visit. Alice has no recollection of this visit whatsoever, leading her to believe that she is stuck in a dream she can’t wake from. They reveal to her a special calendar that tells the future, where she learns she must slay a fearsome monster known as the Jabberwocky, a beast owed by the tyrannical Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter, Sweeney Todd) who torments Underland’s residents.

With the fate of Underland resting in her hands, Alice must come to her senses, and believe in herself in order to slay the beast and return rule of Underland to the kind and gentle White Queen (Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married).

The Evidence
First and foremost, it needs to be noted that from a visual standpoint, this movie is amazing. The scenes that take place in England are rather pedestrian, but the moment Alice finds herself descending through the rabbit’s hole into Underland, the movie takes off. As we all know, director Tim Burton is a cinematic deity when comes to making a movie unique visually. This film is in no way an exception. Underland is a masterpiece of CGI, which is relied upon very heavily in this movie. The range of colors is absolutely fantastic, and the outdoor scenes in the film are just bright and beautiful sights to see. CGI also created memorable characters such as the White Rabbit, Absolem the Caterpillar (Alan Rickman, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry, Kingdom), and Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Matt Lucas, Little Britain). All of these characters are more of the supporting role variety, but each has their own unique allure and are guaranteed to make lasting impressions upon moviegoers.

As far as the leading roles are concerned, Burton-veteran Johnny Depp (Public Enemies) plays one hell of a Mad Hatter. Depp’s makeup, hair, and outfit are absolutely genius in a wild and crazy sort of way that only Tim Burton can capture. The Hatter talks in many different voices and tones, capturing the madness of the loony Mad Hatter to a T. As usual, another excellent performance by Mr. Depp. Wasikowska as Alice didn’t do a whole lot for me. I felt she was kind of dull and made a pretty drowsy protagonist with her lack of emotion and feeling. But looks wise, you can certainly see why she was cast. Bonham Carter played a very good totalitarian, barking orders left and right and screaming her head off from start to finish. At times the constant yelling and screaming was a tad annoying, she reminded me a spoiled little child in a toy store who isn’t getting his or her way. But, I suppose being a ruthless Queen in the literature, that’s just what the character had to do in order to be realistic.

Now as far as Alice In Wonderland‘s story is concerned, this is an aspect that can lead patrons to disliking the movie. In order to avoid this, I think it has to be understood what kind of content is actually found inside the books Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, the two books Burton has based his movie on. These stories, which were penned by Lewis Carroll, are arguably the two biggest representatives of the genre “Literary Nonsense.” They are exactly what the genre says they are, a bunch of garbled nonsense, thrown together to make a story that severely lacks direction, and all in all doesn’t make any sense at all. Burton wanted his movie to stray away from that. He said he wanted his movie to feel like it was telling a story, unlike the books where random events are just happening with no explanation or reasoning as to why they are happening.

For what Burton chose to work with, he did a great job. It couldn’t have been easy to write this script. I for one feel that turning literary nonsense into a major motion picture might just be the hardest thing to do in all of cinema. Tip your hat to Burton, because he did it, and he did it beautifully. Did he do it perfectly? Personally, no. There is still some aimless dialogue and it could frustrate patrons that don’t have an open mind and want their hands held while trying to follow the movie’s plot. But depending on whom you are, you may wind up seeing this as a hat tip to Lewis Carroll, giving the movie that authentic “nonsensical” feeling. Alice In Wonderland seems like a book that was just begging for Burton to make into a movie, since his movies and Carroll’s visions both share that same “trippy” sensation. Now that Burton’s done it, go see it. It’ll all make sense at the end, and your eyes will be grateful that you did.

Closing Statement
Marketed extremely heavily since summertime, Alice In Wonderland is first and foremost a visual delight that will not let you down. From a story standpoint, you could wind up feeling like you’re on whatever it was Lewis Carroll was on when he penned his nonsense, if you allow the visuals to be the only thing you pay attention to. Open your minds like Alice, and take this trip with her down the rabbit’s hole into Underland. If you don’t, the Red Queen may sick the Jabberwocky on you and holler “Off with your head!” You wouldn’t want that would you?

The Verdict
8/10

Public Enemies

OPENING: 07/01/2009

STUDIO: Universal

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
“We’re here for the bank’s money, not yours. Put it away.”

Opening Statement
An unapologetically stiff technical masterpiece of composition and historical accuracy, Public Enemies is a surprise right out of the gate. When one considers the subject matter of Prohibition era bank robbers, Tommy guns and notorious American outlaw John Dillinger, one expects a cinematic humdinger of an action film, full of testosterone and action machismo, dramatic conflict and proper romanticizing of Dillinger as a cultural icon. Surprisingly—or perhaps not at all—we get nothing of the sort. Public Enemies is a film scrubbed so thoroughly of emotion and resonance as to be downright alien. It has no interest in observing any of the action clichés of summer blockbuster films, despite being released in the prime of summer blockbuster season.

Still, what exactly should we have expected from director Michael Mann? Consider Heat, a film that (depending on whom you ask) is either the best action film ever made, or the most colossal of bores. I lean towards the former, and I certainly appreciate Public Enemies for its numerous merits, but I have a feeling this film will be somewhat polarizing with audiences this weekend—especially those looking for a high-octane summer blockbuster.

Facts Of The case
Notorious bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) has just sprung his gang members from an Indiana state prison. It is 1933, and the world is at his fingertips. Dillinger is a cocky-yet-reserved thief who takes what he wants without hesitation, robbing bank after bank in a crime spree across Chicago and the Midwest with his longtime partner John ‘Red’ Hamilton (Jason Clarke). Dillinger le lives for the moment, having no interest in thinking about retirement or the future, aside from his interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl whom he liberates and takes as his girl.

But things are changing in America. Young FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) is training a new generation of investigators in modern techniques to catch criminals and put forth legislation making certain crime fall under federal jurisdiction. Dillinger and his gang have always found safe haven with the National Crime Syndicate in Chicago, but the Syndicate begin to realize that harboring criminals-turned-celebrities like Dillinger might be more trouble than worth—especially as they find new ways to make money without robbery and violence. A hotshot agent named Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) is called in to hunt down Dillinger at all costs.

As the glory days of criminal sprees wind down, Dillinger is forced to make desperate alliances with unfamiliar and notorious gangsters to make money, including the violently unpredictable Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff). Branded Public Enemy #1 and with his friends in jail or dead, Dillinger seems almost oblivious to the noose tightening around his neck…

The Evidence
Public Enemies feels less like a dramatic recreation of the last few years of John Dillinger’s life, and more like a psudo-documentary, as if crews with digital cameras were sent back in time to simply record what they saw of Dillinger’s life. The attention to detail and minutia is nothing short of obsessive. Rarely does a Hollywood blockbuster adhere to historical fact as authentically as Public Enemies does, opting too often to throw caution and reality to the wind in favor of dramatic filmmaking, or to a particularly daring action sequence, or a shuffling of events to suit narrative. Here, the exact opposite is true; the film shoots in documentary-style on location whenever possible in the actual venues and locations that John Dillinger was. The infamous shootout at the Little Bohemia Lodge in Manitowish Waters, Wisconsin was re-created exactly at the same location. Actual banks Dillinger robbed are used to re-create identical robberies, and he escapes out of actual jails he escaped from. Some liberties (as always) are taken in the script, especially in killing various and notorious gangsters in view of the camera, but these are minor historical adjustments at best. The costume designs, the vintage automobiles—every detail is immaculate and perfectly realized.

Flip the coin over, and one quickly realizes that such unflinching historical accuracy and realism elements create a film so absent of Hollywood narrative, clichés and expected plot development as to be uncomfortable, like a spacious room devoid of all furniture. John Dillinger robs some banks, and then he dies. There is no greater purpose, no meaning in the action, no driving motivation behind the events—he did these things, and so Public Enemies shows him doing them. There is no rationalization or judgment behind them, no understanding of the man or his pathos. Action sequences are confused, chaotic affairs full of disorganization, screams and confusion; realistic to be sure, but far from the carefully choreographed sequences audiences expect with heroes leaping over cars firing guns akimbo.

It is possible that we may never see a movie more unsuited to be released at the height of the summer blockbuster season than Public Enemies. This is not to suggest that it is a bad film; far from it. When taken at its own merits, Mann has created a fascinating and detailed cinematic experience, a period retelling of a tumultuous era in American history with fantastic performances from cast and crew alike. But as a summer blockbuster, Public Enemies is as disinterested and cold as Dillinger (the man) reveals himself to be. At the screening I attended, there were quite a number of scattered boos echoing through the theater as the credits rolled. I overheard one person lament that they didn’t “get it”. They ask, “so he robs banks, and then he dies, and that’s it?” Yes, that’s it. Think of Public Enemies not as an action film, but a biopic; an academic retelling of key historical events in the life of a bank robber. Why does he rob banks? Even Dillinger himself seems uninterested in exploring his own motivations. No back story is offered, no childhood memory to justify his action. He is a matter-of-fact fellow, and he robs banks in a matter-of-fact sort of way. Dillinger says of himself that he likes baseball, movies, good clothes and fast cars. What else you need to know?

As an actor, Depp cuts a remarkable Dillinger, his physical resemblance to the man notwithstanding. This is a controlled and reserved performance, as simple and unpretentious a role for Depp as we have seen from him in years. Likewise for Christian Bale, who leaves his gruff bravado at the door—a refreshing break from his recent emphysemic action films. Bale cuts a dapper and suave profile as Melvin Purvis, the man out to catch Dillinger. With little character development portrayed in the film, the two embody living caricatures of actual people, and do it professionally and efficiently. Purvis does what he does because it’s his job, nothing more. We are used to seeing our characters in this role suffering obsession and anger and frustration, but none of that here; another subversion of expectation. We expect Dillinger to be something of a narcissist, but not so; he is interested in his stature as a growing celebrity, but only as a curiosity, observing with pride, but without flare or fuss. He is cool and calm and in complete control, and only begins to lose his cool when his girlfriend gets pinched. Marion Cotillard plays Dillinger’s girl, Billie Frechette, and her contribution to the film is mostly auxiliary, possessing few memorable lines and little to do in the script beyond run around and look anxious, playing her established role in the history lesson.

Beyond the primary cast, Public Enemies is crammed with dozens of secondary characters, all of various levels of interest, relevance and influence in Dillinger’s life. His gang of fellow robbers includes brief but solid performances from Stephen Dorff and Jason Clarke, and we are introduced to Purvis’ character by way of his apprehension (murder, really) of Pretty Boy Floyd (a cameo appearance by Channing Tatum). Of particular note is the casting of Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson; a devilishly wicked bit of casting. Graham is unhinged and raucous as Nelson, but gets little screen time.

Michael Mann has proven himself to be a filmmaker of astonishing technical prowess and craft, meticulous in design, accuracy and execution time and again, and no one will fault Public Enemies for its stylish direction, gritty cinematography and ultra-realistic action sequences. The high-definition digital film (a look familiar to fans of Collateral) seems oddly out-of-pace in a period film so meticulous in its historic accuracy and detail, but actually lends itself surprisingly well once audiences adjust to the washed-out color palate and peculiar lighting. Night sequences are particularly effective, casting trench coat thugs in shadow and swirling grain. Fans of Mann’s action work in the past will know exactly what to expect here, especially during the gunfight sequences, where proper caliber rules are observed. Handguns make small popping sounds in comparison to the Tommy gun, which unlike its “rat-a-tat-tat” characterization in films of yesteryear, is actually a loud, frightening and percussive thing that goes “KABOOM KABOOM KABOOM” and makes big holes in people. For a film with a running time of over two hours, action sequences are relatively few, but they feel well-placed and astonishingly visceral. Bullets pound into trees, and on-screen characters wince visibly with the impact and vibration. It’s all about the little details.

Dillinger in American folk culture is something of an anti-establishment folk hero, a rebel at the height of the Great Depression and takes the American Dream into dangerous and dramatic new directions, taking what he wants from the wealthy and the corrupt. He represented reckless and romantic abandon, freedom from constraints and rules. In Public Enemies, Dillinger is just a guy with a day job robbing banks. He enjoys what he does, and dresses sharp, and makes no apologies for his action, but reality lacks the same flair and charisma that American audiences have come to expect from this particular subject after years of popular culture, serialization, gangster films and word-of-mouth exaggeration.

Public Enemies is a constant subversion of expectations, replacing machismo and bravado and action sensibilities with cold authenticity and historical detail. There is little in the way of wit or humor in the film, because Dillinger was not a particularly witty or humorous person. With so few liberties taken by the screenplay, Public Enemies is boxed in by its own desire for total historical accuracy. It is not Mann’s strongest film, but it offers up a unique and unexpectedly faithful take on the American gangster mythology. Depending on your sensibilities, you will either find it refreshing, or extremely boring.

Closing Statement
Public Enemies eschews being boxed into popcorn blockbuster categorizations, yet bizarrely released at the absolute apex of audience expectations for such a film. This may be the most surprising film released this entire summer, a devious joke played by Universal upon the movie going public at large in the first week of July at a time when “subtlety” is the name of a jive-talking robot in a Michael Bay film. Oh my.

An undeniably fascinating technical and meticulous composition of historical accuracy and period drama, Public Enemies is too low-key and subtle to be categorized with Mann’s best work to-date, but if one goes in with the right expectations, the film will deliver as only his films can. Still, I fear the majority of the moviegoing public might not get the memo in time, and mistake Public Enemies for a film it is not.

The Verdict
7/10