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.

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.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Review #1702: G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Cast: 

Dwayne Johnson (Marvin F. Hinton / Roadblock), Bruce Willis (General Joe Colton), Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Jonathan Pryce (Zartan / President of the United States), Byung-hun Lee (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Elodie Yung (Kim Arashikage / Jinx), Ray Stevenson (Firefly), D.J. Cotrona (Dashiell R. Faireborn / Flint), Adrianne Palicki (Jaye Burnett / Lady Jaye), Luke Bracey (Rexford G. 'Rex' Lewis / Cobra Commander; Robert Baker as voice), Walton Goggins (Warden Nigel James), Arnold Vosloo (Zartan), and Joseph Mazzello (Morris L. Sanderson / Mouse) Directed by Jon M. Chu.

Review: 

Do you remember G.I. Joe? All power to you then, because it has been essentially nine years since I last thought about it. G.I. Joe is a series of doll-I mean action figures that Hasbro began production on in 1964. There had been comics involving G.Is for decades, but Hasbro eventually came up with their own attempts at comics, with the most notable being a G.I. Joe series with Marvel Comics in the 1980s; an animated series also ran during that time that promoted the toy line and had its own film (which went from plans for a theatrical release to television after the failure of The Transformers: The Movie). At any rate, it should only make sense that a Hasbro property like this would eventually be turned into a live-action feature, seeing how Transformers (2007) turned out so "well". Five writers later, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) came out to box office success amid ridicule from anybody looking for a good one to make fun of. I remember being twelve years old and seeing this movie in theaters only because I got a gift card to the movie theater as a present around that time,; I've probably seen that movie once or twice ever since, and its qualities haven't exactly improved since then. You don't really need me to tell you in a long spiel that it was a dumb movie, one catered to the tastes of script-logic akin to Transformers that had plenty of clunky moments.

So yeah, a sequel was warranted, and I guess it only makes some sort of arcane sense to get a director best known for dance movies to direct. The sequel was meant to be released in 2012, but Paramount Pictures (who in their odd wisdom wanted to do a reboot but not a reboot) shifted its release five weeks before its intended release because they wanted to convert the film to be shown in 3-D (because they wanted to make more money with a fad-I mean a great process for experiencing movies). Despite all of the hubbub, it was essentially just as successful as the original feature was (i.e. making back twice its budget). Eight years later, here we are talking about the release of a new G.I. Joe film...an origins story, which is amusing to think about (because hey, Transformers did it, so...). Anyway, this feature film was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who were best known for their work on Zombieland (2009). You would think that making an ensemble cast movie series would mean that there is a bit of cast continuity between features...well, try again. Five cast members (Lee, Park, Pryce, Vosloo, Tatum) return from the previous film, and only two of them has a substantial speaking role as a hero (Park plays a mostly quiet ninja commando, but still). For a run-time of 110 minutes, this is a film that does the bare minimum in every department and flails slightly less than its predecessor in the art of balancing spectacle and the little thing they call "substance". Some movies can get away with being a fun time without having the greatest plot (like Commando, for example), but this is not one of those movies. There are not many sequels that are better than the first one that are also quite forgettable, but this sure is one of them. It is just a middling movie, one that fundamentally has no one great (or terrible) sequence to think about, because there are just a bunch of "eh" scenes with a plot that kind of floats around with a cast that doesn't have much footing to go around besides a few attempts at humor. Johnson surely seems like the kind of presence one would see coming to try and invigorate interest in a film, particularly since action seems to be right up his alley. While I can't say his performance is exactly anything good, he at least seems game for a movie with plastic ambitions at action with fairly solid composure; somehow, the filmmakers had the bright idea to kill off the lead guy of their first film with Tatum, and he looks about as interested as waiting for soup to cool off. Honestly, I can't tell which actor seems more in it for the money, Willis or Pryce (one gets to play the President and the other doesn't have to show up for almost a hour), and it is almost amusing to see them see them try to make these lines seem anything other than lines spoken by committee. I guess Lee does well here, in that he gets to a bit of swordplay and not have to wear a mask the whole time (as opposed to Park). The other members of the ensemble don't fare too well, seeming about as interested in talking action spiel as one would be interested in talking about the dynamics of why baseball is the greatest sport to follow to a bunch of Yankees fans. As a whole, what we have is a bland movie that goes boom a few times but never really goes farther than "do something!" in terms of maneuvering an interesting plot or characters beyond cliché. If one needs some sort of action fix in the modern era or need to waste time with people who should know better, at least make sure you check the whole totem pole of options before thinking about this one.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Leatherheads.

Review #1187: Leatherheads.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Jimmy "Dodge" Connelly), Renée Zellweger (Lexie Littleton), John Krasinski (Carter Rutherford), Jonathan Pryce (CC), Stephen Root (Suds), Wayne Duvall (Coach Frank Ferguson), Keith Loneker (Big Gus), Malcolm Goodwin (Bakes), Matt Bushell (Curly), Tim Griffin (Ralph), Robert Baker (Stump), and Nick Paones (Zoom) Directed by George Clooney (#851 - The Monuments Men)

Review: 
Perhaps the appeal of football is all spectacle. You really do have to be a bit crazy to play a game where the point is try to score points and avoid getting tackled and suffer injury - although you could probably apply that to other sports (namely, hockey). Still, the amount of hype for professional football gets from its stars to its halftime shows can be a bit absurd, depending on the amount of patience one has with football. While football has evolved over the past decades, this can apply to films as well, where now there exists a screwball comedy with 1920s football in the background. The original script was done by Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly (of Sports Illustrated fame) in the early 1990s, languishing for over a decade before Clooney re-wrote the material to fit as a screwball comedy (going un-credited for the work). The story took inspiration from the exploits of John "Johnny Blood" McNally and the signing of Red Grange to the pros in 1925. One thing that the movie does do well is capture the look of the decade it wants to portray with plenty of production value, and the music from Randy Newman is a fair standout. However, the film feels a bit too muddled into trying to be funny that it never really takes off, falling along the lines harmlessly. You would be better off with The Freshman (1925) when it comes to football and comedy, honestly. The film relies on the trio of Clooney-Zellweger-Krasinski to try and deliver laughs, and they do provide a few chuckles, but after a while you are essentially waiting for the movie to move along, as if watching quirky 20s football (and the offbeat people playing it) would actually serve for more of a focus. While the film may feel a bit too bloated in length in 114 minutes when it gets to its climax with the football game, it is somewhat of a relief.

Admittedly, the best person in the film is Clooney, who seems to be having fun with a role reminding me of a buccaneer for football, not being above using tricks to try and win (or have fun), which I can certainly go along with to a point. Zellweger is fine, and Krasinski is okay as well, but they don't really have much to go on in terms of personality that makes them resonate beyond a cursory glance. The football supporting cast (along with Pryce) seem to generate more interest than the love story, having more energy to it while going through its own type of routines. One film I did think about when watching was Slap Shot (1977), which embraced its old-time approach to its sport while having a charismatic lead that led to better laughs and overall a more entertaining time without needing to try to have it both ways (screwball and sports). The football stuff might have made for a TV miniseries or maybe even just a sketch, but as is this is simply just an average movie that doesn't quite fufill all of its aspirations but will prove just okay if you're into what it tries to sell you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Review #201: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Cast
Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Marlon Wayans (Wallace A. Weems / Ripcord), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Hershel Dalton / Heavy Duty), Rachel Nichols (Shana M. O'Hara / Scarlett), Sienna Miller (Anastasia DeCobray / Ana Lewis / The Baroness), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Saïd Taghmaoui (Abel Shaz / Breaker), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Rexford G. "Rex" Lewis / The Doctor / Cobra Commander), Christopher Eccleston (Laird James McCullen XXIV / Destro), Lee Byung-hun (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Jonathan Pryce (The President), Dennis Quaid (General Clayton M. Abernathy / Hawk), and Karolína Kurková (Courtney A. Krieger / Cover Girl) Directed by Stephen Sommers.

Review
It's been a few days since my last review, and given the subject matters of the last two films, let's dissapoint with this film. First off, I'm not a follower of G.I. Joe (Sadly, the most I've heard of it was on That 70's Show, and that as a debate over if it was a doll or an action figure), but with this film, I wouldn't want to. The acting is standard, with not much substance to help out. And to certain fans of one actor, you'll be dissapointed that he is in this at all (Those fans? Probably 3rd Rock from the Sun or something) The action isn't much better, at one point I went to sleep at the underwater part (and I had to rewind the film, that's a first) I have one question (among others) Why do they need to steal their own warheads? Why build a base under the polar icecaps? With all the silliness, they could've had the base in space and it would've made sense. You know, with Transformers, there were Robots and humans to go with it. This is just humans and some tech that desn't have much style, but can be a film of dumb fun. Just turn off the brain, ignore everything, and don't sleep at the end. There will be a sequel to this, but after 4 years does anyone really care? Not really.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Tomorrow Never Dies.

Review #171: Tomorrow Never Dies.

Cast
Pierce Brosnan (James Bond), Jonathan Pryce (Elliot Carver), Michelle Yeoh (Colonel Wai Lin), Teri Hatcher (Paris Carver), Götz Otto (Richard Stamper), Ricky Jay (Henry Gupta), Joe Don Baker (Jack Wade), Vincent Schiavelli (Dr. Kaufman), Judi Dench (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), and Samantha Bond (Miss Moneypenny). Directed by Roger Spottiswoode.

Review
This is the 18th James Bond film, released 15 years ago in 1997. Anyway, the last time we saw Bond was reviews ago with a different person (#150 - Dr. No) Brosnan does a fine job in his second film in the role (First being GoldenEye) Pryce is decent, as this villain is more plausible then usual, compared to villains from before (A man with metal claws, a man that loves gold, and more, including Christopher Walken) The rest of the cast is decent, doing their jobs as any other cast tries to do in a Bond film. The story is decent with reasonably alright action and gadgets. This film isn't a great one, but it is a decent one.

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.