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.

The Jacket.

Review #1142: The Jacket.

Cast: 
Adrien Brody (Jack Starks), Keira Knightley (Jackie Price), Kris Kristofferson (Dr. Thomas Becker), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Beth Lorenson), Kelly Lynch (Jean Price), Brad Renfro (The Stranger), Daniel Craig (Rudy Mackenzie), Steven Mackintosh (Dr. Hopkins), Brendan Coyle (Damon), and Mackenzie Phillips (Nurse Hardling) Directed by John Maybury.

Review: 
The Jacket certainly has an interesting premise to it, with a story from Marc Rocco and Tom Bleecker that was turned into a screenplay written by Massy Tadjedlin. Maybury stated that the film was "loosely based a true story that became a Jack London story." The story he is referring to is the 1915 novel The Star Rover (known as The Jacket for its release in the United Kingdom), which is a novel about a man put into a canvas jacket while in prison that tightly laced his body. The description of the device were based on interviews with Ed Morrell, a convict who was subject to the device during some of his time at San Quentin State Prison in the late 19th century/early 20th century. In any case, this is a movie that certainly likes to think of itself as one step ahead of the audience, although I would like to argue that the film actually staggers along with the audience while dangling some keys in front of them. Perhaps you manage to get more out of this psychological thriller/horror film than I do, because I found this to be a pretty average experience that doesn't stand out as much as it probably should.

Brody heads the cast, and he is occasionally effective, such as with the scenes at the mental institution and the jacket sequences, certainly looking the part. However, I don't find him to be as interesting to follow along with in the other sequences in "2007", being a bit too underplayed. Knightley does alright for what is needed, but this is a movie that perhaps needs a duo a bit more interesting to follow along with, especially since their chemistry is quickly established, and yet it doesn't feel particularly convincing. Think about this - Brody's character meets her character as a kid in 1992, then "meets" her again in 2007 - and they unite to solve a mystery surrounding the former character - and then they fall in love with each other, somehow. Kristofferson doesn't have as much to do as one would expect besides a few scenes that don't make him out to be too particularly menacing. A film like this really needs someone to rally around and rally against (while presenting some sort of interesting ideas to think about), and this one doesn't have much for either. Leigh is fine, having her own subplot that comes and goes with about as much effect (read: minimal) as you would expect. The other cast comes and goes, but Craig stands out with some charm that comes through in his few scenes  The plot involving the jacket and the mystery about Brody's character are occasionally intriguing, but it seems to stick out more for its style shots than anything while trying to play some tricks with the narrative. Instead of being compelling or chilling, I felt more a tinge of passiveness that could've been worsened to boredom, especially since there seems to be a skeleton of a film that can really make a winner. By the time that the film sinks itself into a climax, my mood wasn't so much one of disappointment as it was just one of slight apathy. If I don't care too much about what happens with these people, is the film really worth it? On some levels the film works out fine, and there are a few times that it is creepy, but other times I just couldn't find myself buying into it fully. Despite being 103 minutes long, there just isn't enough effective moments that last enough to really make this something I can recommend definitively.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.