Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Review #2205: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Stellan Skarsgård (William "Bootstrap Bill" Turner), Bill Nighy (Davy Jones: Captain of the Flying Dutchman), Jack Davenport (James Norrington), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Tom Hollander (Lord Cutler Beckett), Naomie Harris (Tia Dalma), Alex Norton (Captain Bellamy), David Bailie (Cotton), Martin Klebba (Marty), David Schofield (Mercer), and John Boswall (Wyvern) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring, #1557 - Rango, and #1724 - Pirates of  the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl)

Review: 

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) was a hit so obvious that a plan to make back-to-back sequels was, well, a match made in pirate heaven, compete with retaining the services of its director Gore Verbinski to go with a screenplay done by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, who had been two of the credited writers behind the original (as one remembers, there had been re-writes on that film, but Elliott and Rossio would write all except the last one together). The first sequel would feature working ships (as opposed to shooting on just one location) that would lead to various action set pieces, such, as, well, a bone cage. Of course, it was Verbinski who wanted the members of the ship to be composed of physical (sea) creatures rather than ghosts that Rossio and Elliott had in mind, complete with most of said things being played through CG, with the exception of makeup (such as extensive prosthetics and motion capture that sees one actor wear dots that then has CG added) for two of them. Shot for over $200 million, the second part of the back-to-back production came out with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (which shot its ending just a few days into shooting the second film because of the nature of filming in certain islands) the following year.

I suppose 150 minutes is not a surprise length for a film that is the middle film of a trilogy that basically arose from the deep (read: money). Obviously, it can't have as much magic as the original did when it comes to being a CG spectacle, but I think you can imagine the appeal that lies within a committed crew in the art of wanting to execute entertainment in the useful sweet spot of the mid 2000s. It is an oiled machine that believes itself to be well-oiled enough to throw around several threads that it can dangle for a later setup, whether that involves the importance of sand, British people being weird, or the finer points of sea dwelling that makes for a reasonably fine experience. Granted, it isn't as "pretty good" as the previous film, but it provides enough spark to latch a hook for at least one more go-around the wheel because of the various desires that you would see coming from a film title meaning to get the eye(s). It never wanders away from trying to deliver something interesting to hear or see on screen, which is semi-effective. Verbinski once described the challenges of balancing Depp with the others as him being the spice in a "garlic milkshake". That probably works best when describing the aura of Depp in a role of the scoundrel among a litany of straights and other various creatures that he plays with the right blend of conniving charm. He walks the fine line of adventure with a swagger that seems to enjoy the idea of yanking the chain of others around him, regardless of if they are friend or foe, if only to avoid the end of all the mythmaking. He plays it with no sense of tiredness to it, jumbling through chases with a certain gaze that seems to be looking past the sword. Bloom and Knightley are in their own different interactions with Depp (as shaped by making sure to not have them all together for a good while), which is generally worth viewing, as evidenced by the amusing fight that breaks out in the sands where Knightley is watching a fight with the temper that arises from the clash of egos in sand. Skarsgård and Nighy make for useful newcomers to the series that aren't completely lost in the (interesting) effects around them, with the former making a useful player in the shaky bond of father and son (with Bloom) and the latter being a compelling adversary (Nighy has stated that rather than an accent of Dutch, he favored a Scottish one) of cruel fun. There are no weak spots among the rest of the gang of rogues and other such things, whether that involves the consistent pro in McNally or seasoned ones such as a ravished Davenport or those providing levity such as Arenberg and Crook. The staging of the action works fairly well for what is necessary in swashbuckling in the fashion of interest that takes a giant wheel and has fun with that. As a whole, it is a solidly fine sequel that plays the middle ground for pirate action with just a bit leftover to bubble over for looking at the next installment with curious interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Ring.

Redux #140: The Ring.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel Keller), David Dorfman (Aidan Keller), Martin Henderson (Noah Clay), Daveigh Chase (Samara Morgan), Brian Cox (Richard Morgan), Shannon Cochran (Anna Morgan), Jane Alexander (Dr. Grasnik), Lindsay Frost (Ruth Embry), Amber Tamblyn (Katherine Embry), Rachael Bella (Rebecca Kotler), Richard Lineback (Innkeeper), and Pauley Perette (Beth) Directed by Gore Verbinski.

Review: 

This was the third feature film of Gore Verbinski, a Tennessee native that grew up as both a filmmaker and a man interested in playing guitar. He directed numerous commercials after graduating from UCLA before Mouse Hunt (1997) was his feature film debut. Oh, but you aren't here for background when it comes to a review dedicated to re-doing an old review. Enclosed here is the entire review of what I thought about the movie in 2012, as a 15-year old in his second year of doing reviews.

This is a remake of a 1998 Japanese film named Ring (which was based on the novel also named Ring). Anyway, this film has some scares that don't use sneaking up on people, found footage, or gore, but by disturbing images that keep you invested. The acting's decent, with Watts doing a good job. The little kid feels like a Sixth Sense type of kid, which isn't necessary. This film feels fine, until the end. I feel this is a confusing end that makes you wonder this: Why? Why do you need this type of ending? Why not just end on a good end rather then twist end us, setting up the basis for a sequel rather then just easily close out this film that is decent, with scares, and...a setup for a sequel.

Pretty short, huh? I gave a movie a 7-star rating and I didn't even bother to make a useful case for why. I can at least give myself credit for listing it as a remake of Hideo Nakata's Ring (1998) which in turn was an adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel of the same name that had a key distinction: no psych-meter to attempt to solve the horror-mystery like in the novel. That movie had a slow build in narrative threading to play on expectations with spirituality and calm pacing involving the threat of Sadako. The 2002 movie (as scripted by Ehren Kruger) has its own approach to its threat, now named Samara, based on the same idea of a ghost that is manifested after death with a grip of rage to seek vengeance on the living while never sleeping. So yes, you watch a VHS tape (yes) and possibly die in seven days. Incidentally, the film was 130 minutes when it came to its original version before being trimmed to 115 that mainly involved making it a bit less graphic along with cutting a character played by Chris Cooper that showed up for just the start and climax. Two decades later, The Ring is a decent movie, one that represents the time that it was made in capturing anxiety and unease without verging into gore. Granted, no movie is good or bad just because they don't play into the gore angle for horror (unless you happen to be squeamish or really into things), it all goes down to execution. After all, the VHS tape that makes it all possible is brief but unnerving enough to lurk in your mind. I think it works out quite well in keeping the tension at a reasonable length when it comes to the human element, complete with a gloomy setting in the state of Washington (mostly Seattle) to make it fit. Watts makes a solid presence to hold the film up in ordinary withered charm that works to the tension required when it comes to balancing mystery and family devotion, which works best when paired against her on-screen son Dorfman, who lurks in nerves without saying much. Henderson is casually there, but really the attention goes to Cox, hostile but alluring when presented in the second half of the film to bring it all together. 

Having seen both films, at least one can say the ending works just about right for a film that involves a cycle that does not yield to simple actions. I think the original film has a better resolution when it comes to the final decision made, although each have pretty decent choices to show its creature without going overboard. One could have ended without going back to the TV, but you need that little bit about what kind of sacrifice is needed to "combat" the threat. It is debatable as to which film is the better one, since the 1998 is probably a bit more subtle in subverting expectations while the 2002 film carries its own way of getting from point A to point B without falling into the remake trap of repetition without innovation. A 2005 sequel to the film followed in The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata. It did not end well, to say the least. A 2017 film called Rings was released by Paramount Pictures. As a whole, the appeal of Ring definitely kept the attention of filmmakers in Japan busy, evidenced by the eight features (Sadako DX was released in October of 2022) with varying plot relations to the books or previous films. As for The Ring, the legacy of the film is the fact that it managed to be a quality remake that stands on its own in calm suspense for the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Rings (2017). We are almost done.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Review #1724: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Jack Davenport (Norrington), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Zoe Saldana (Anamaria), David Bailie (Cotton), and Greg Ellis (Officer) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring (2002) and #1557 - Rango)

Review: 

The movie is based on the theme park ride of the same name (which had originated at the original Disneyland in Anaheim in 1967). It was the second theatrical movie to be made by Disney based on one of their rides, which they started with Mission to Mars (2000) that was followed by films such as The Country Bears (2002); of course, while Pirates is the only one of these theme parks to have more than one feature, Disney has continued to mine the depths for further attempts, judging by the release of Jungle Cruise this year. Perhaps it seems strange that folks in the film industry thought this would be a flop on release. Pirate movies were not exactly high in demand at the time, since there had not been a wildly successful pirate film since the 1950s, and not even Disney was entirely confident in having Depp as its star, because one supposes that his reputation was more suited for cult favorites (which amuses me greatly); incidentally, Depp's desire to work with Disney was actually because he wanted to star in one of their animated features. At any rate, Disney at one point in time had to convince themselves to not simply make the film as a direct-to-video product (imagine the title pirate being played by Christopher Walken...or Cary Elwes!). However, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (known for various blockbuster films such as Top Gun) stayed firm with making a big budget movie that could compete with all of those other blockbusters (well, this was 2003), and it was his persistence to keep on with keeping the concept art going that convinced Michael Eisner (the CEO of the Walt Disney Company at the time) to not cancel the project after seeing said designs; he was grousing about the idea of spending so much money (to which Bruckheimer stated that his competitors were spending $150 million), although Eisner did have one other point in trying to eliminate more ties to the park-ride. Of course, there were plenty of casting ideas. Can one really imagine Robert De Niro as the lead? The original story idea came from three executives at the company (Brigham Taylor, Michael Haynes and Josh Harmon); Jay Wolpert was brought in to write a script based on the ride in 2001, while Stuart Beattie would be brought in the following year for the piracy angle in re-writes (to add on to the lead discussion, Beattie wrote the script with Hugh Jackman in mind). Bringing in Jerry Bruckheimer to produce the movie certainly helped, because he did not want a straight pirate movie. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (best known for their contributions to film scripts such as Aladdin (1992) and Shrek (2001)) were brought in to provide re-writes, since they had an interest in providing a supernatural angle to a pirate film; Wolpert, Beattie, Elliott, and Rossio each received a story credit, with the latter two receiving credit for the screenplay. 

What can I say that hasn't been said? It is a blockbuster, one that is wrapped to the gills in adventure and interest that proved to be the big ship movie for its year and ultimately its era (with apologies to Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which is a better overall movie, but each are pretty good to spend time with). Who better to see a 18th century pirate and think the best parallel to said figure is a rock star? The movie has its edges of camp with eventful performances without becoming a silly parody or one that loses the plot, making a fine homage to the classic adventure flicks of the past while managing to stay relevant in the art of not seeming like an overt bland copy (albeit with the modern habits of trying to stuff oneself with fights on fights, or at least it seems like the modern choice for it, if you know what I mean). It is Depp that dominates the movie in curiosity, as one has already guessed. He has a daring spirit that coasts through the film with tremendous timing and swagger that certainly seems to have all the charisma the film needs (amusingly, Eisner actually thought upon seeing rushes that he was drunk); there just wasn't a pirate like the one that Depp brought onto the screen. Rush delivers well as the other piratical presence, broad and fun with needs to happen in those moments spent playing against either Knightley or Depp, having it what it takes to make a worthy adversarial presence that keeps attention without bluster. Bloom and Knightley aren't lost in the proceedings, however. For one thing, Bloom has what it takes to play the pent-up angle without looking lost (i.e. channeling a tiny bit of the Errol Flynn spirit), and this of course includes the time spent with a sword, naturally. Knightley partakes in the curiosity with spry athleticism and worthy enough timing to keep up that proves for a worthy result. Davenport and Pryce play the straight angle (wigs and all), and for the most part that works out for a few little moments of dry interest, which works fine when it comes to scenes spent either on wood or other things. There are quite a few worthy character presences here that keep the film light on its toes for useful interest, mostly in the case of McNally. As a whole, it proves interesting in its attempts to make a by-the-blows adventure ride of a film, which work out well for the most part.  Of course, it does prove a bit packed at 143 minutes (which is somehow longer than the aforementioned Master film), but one can at least see where all the adventure can lead to, whether that ranges from CG undead pirates to various other moments. It doesn't raise the bar for adventure movies or even CGI spectacles, but it at least serves its purpose well, and it does indeed make the curiosity grow for just where one can go with a curious lead actor and a hodgepodge of folks to engage in piratical spectacle.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rango.

Review #1557: Rango.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Rango), Isla Fisher (Beans), Abigail Breslin (Priscilla), Ned Beatty (Tortoise John), Alfred Molina (Roadkill), Bill Nighy (Rattlesnake Jake), Harry Dean Stanton (Balthazar), Ray Winstone (Bad Bill), Timothy Olyphant (The Spirit of the West), Stephen Root (Doc / Mr. Merrimack), Maile Flanagan (Lucky), Alanna Ubach (Boo Cletus / Fresca / Miss Daisy), Ian Abercrombie (Ambrose), Gil Birmingham (Wounded Bird), and James Ward Byrkit (Waffles) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring)

Review: 
“I always wanted to do an animated movie. I find it to be incredibly liberating as a way of telling a story. It lends itself to more surreal concepts because you’re limited by expectations of total reality and I just think you can have a conversation with a peanut butter sandwich or Miyazaki turns the parents into pigs. You’re limited from the conventions of live action.”

There can be quite a dual nature to the art of finding a way into filmmaking, which is equally appropriate for Gore Verbinski. His first profession was in music, participating in a variety of rock band in Los Angeles as a guitarist. He sold his guitar for a film camera and found himself taking direction for music videos and eventually commercials (you may or may not recognize one of his ads involving frogs for Budweiser). He made his directorial debut with Mouse Hunt (1997) and has continued on with a variety of genres and general use of visual effects, whether that involves horror with The Ring (2002) and A Cure for Wellness (2016) or adventure epic with the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films (2003, 2006, 2007). There are a variety of films that this film took some inspiration from, ranging from films from Chinatown (1974) to El Topo (1970) to The Shakiest Gun in the West (1968). This was the first animation effort from Industrial Light & Magic, who you will have recognized from several films over the years (such as the Pirates of the Caribbean films), with Hal Hickel as animation director. The interesting thing is that Verbinski wanted to capture something "kinetic" with the performances, which involved having the actors perform with costumes and sets to have them feel like they are part of the Wild West, with the audio being lifted for the film, which he aspired to do as a "small" film when compared to his previous features.

A group of Westerns in the era after its golden age of the past try in some way to borrow some of the characteristics from before with their own spin on what the frontier of the Old West means. In this sense, we have a film of identity that draws upon quite a few Westerns in some sensibility that generally works itself out handily in entertainment with some finely-tuned animation and a cast worth following along with in this tale of critters in the desert. It has a strange touch that will appeal fairly equally for adults and children (more so older than younger) without becoming tacked and tacky in execution and charm. Depp is precisely the voice one could want for such an intriguing title character - amusing, wonderful and quite adept at following along in growing confidence as the unlikely sly lizard of the moment that gives a good push without seeming like an eccentric bit for the sake of it. Fisher follows along with capable drive and a zippy rapport with Depp for some moments, while Breslin adds some familiar curiosity in parts. Beatty proves quite enjoyable with a familiar kind of schemer with a folksy voice suited for what is needed to hear on screen. Others prove just as useful, such as Molina or Nighy, while Stanton and Olyphant bring a worthwhile chuckle. On the whole, it generally works out with its humor without seeming too much for whatever particular audience it aims for, finding its stride in a search for identity with interesting animation and a game cast to make a 107 minute adventure that I can recommend without hesitation for some fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.