“PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: On Stranger Tides” (2011) Review

 

“PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES” (2011) Review

When the Disney Studios and producer Jerry Bruckheimer had first released news of their intention to make sequels to their 2003 hit movie, “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: Curse of the Black Pearl”, I reacted to the news with a greatdeal of wariness. In fact, I was against the idea. But after seeing 2006’s “Dead Man’s Chest” and 2007’s “At World’s End”, my opinion had changed. I ended up enjoying the two movies just as much as I had enjoyed “Curse of the Black Pearl” . . . especially the second film. 

About two years after “At World’s End” hit the theaters, the Disney people and Bruckheimer had released news of their intention to make a fourth film. Again, I expressed wariness at the idea. I thought the three movies released between 2003and 2007 made a neat little trilogy. There was no need for a fourth movie. But Disney and Bruckheimer went ahead with their plans and a fourth movie was recently released. But unlike “Dead Man’s Chest” and “At World’s End”, I found it difficult to enjoy “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: On Stranger Tides”.

I cannot say that I disliked the film. There were aspects of it that I genuinely enjoyed. Both Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush were in top form as Captain Jack Sparrow and Captain Hector Barbossa. But I noticed something odd about their characters in this movie. For once, Jack did not have a particular goal to attain in this film. In “Curse of the Black Pearl”, he was after the Black Pearl. He was after the chest that contained Davy Jones’ heart in “Dead Man’s Chest” to be used to avoid a debt that he owned. And in “At World’s End”, he was still after Jones’ heart in order to gain the opportunity to become master of the Flying Dutchman and immortality. In this fourth movie, Jack seemed to have become swept up in Blackbeard and the British Crown’s agendas. And Barbossa seemed out of place as a privateer for His Majesty King George II and the Royal Navy. There was a scene that featured him eating slices of fruit arranged on a plate. He seemed to be doing his best to project the image of an officer and a gentleman . . . only he looked rather odd. However, both actors gave top notch performances and I could find nothing to complain about.

I could also say the same about the performances of Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane and Stephen Graham as Angelica, Edward “Blackbeard” Teach and a sailor named Scrum, respectively. All three were perfectly cast in their respective roles. Cruz did an excellent job in portraying the complex Angelica, who happened to be the daughter of Blackbeard. Although it is obvious that she is attracted to Jack – a former lover, she seemed to have this . . . need for her father’s love that made her into some kind of twisted Daddy’s girl wannabe. Unfortunately, McShane’s Blackbeard seemed like poor father material. There were times when he conveyed the image of a concerned and loving father. And yet, he proved to be nothing more than an emotional vampire who would easily kill his daughter if she got in the way of his goal – the Fountain of Youth. And I must admit that not only did McShane made a witty and terrifying Blackbeard, he handled his character’s twisted relationship with Angelica beautifully. Graham’s Scrum almost struck me as a younger version of Jack’s old friend, Joshamee Gibbs. And considering that the latter’s appearance in this film seemed somewhat limited, it seemed just as well that Graham received more screen time.

There were other aspects of “On Stranger Tides” that I enjoyed. Or should I say, scenes? The mermaids’ attacks upon Blackbeard’s men and upon the H.M.S. Providence were among the most terrifying scenes I have seen in the franchise since the Kracken’s attacks in “Dead Man’s Chest”. I also enjoyed the scene that featured Jack’s mutinous meeting with members of Blackbeard’s crew. Personally, I found it very funny and it brought back memories of former characters such as Pintel, Ragetti, Marty and Cotton. Jack’s meeting with King George II proved to be somewhat entertaining. And it led to an equally entertaining chase sequence through the streets of mid-18th century London. But my favorite scene featured Jack marooning Angelica on a deserted island, following the death of Blackbeard. The humor not only permeated strongly in their verbal exchange, but also in director Rob Marshall’s visual style. And I must admit that I also enjoyed the photography featured in the London scenes and the “island” where the Fountain of Youth was located. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski did justice to the lush Hawaii jungle that served as one of the movie’s settings.

So, if I had so much to enjoy about “On Stranger Tides”, why did it fail to resonate within me in the end? What went wrong? At least for me? My main problem with the movie is that I felt it tried to repeat many aspects of the first film,“Curse of the Black Pearl”. This is odd, considering that “On Stranger Tides” was allegedly inspired by Tim Powers’ 1987 novel, “On Stranger Tides”. The fourth film did not come off as a remake or anything of such. But there were too many aspects of the first film that seemed to be repeated in “On Stranger Tides”. One, Jack’s reunion with Angelica in a London tavern almost seemed like a remake of his first meeting with Will Turner in “Curse of the Black Pearl”. Scrum almost seemed like a remake of Joshamee Gibbs. This is not surprising, since he had more scenes with Jack that Gibbs and the latter (along with actor Kevin McNally) seemed wasted in the movie. Two of Blackbeard’s crew turned out to be zombies (if you can call them that). And they seemed like remakes (physical and otherwise) of Barbossa’s first mate from the first film, Bo’sun. More importantly, the romance between missionary Philip Swift and the mermaid Syrena almost seemed like a remake of the Will Turner/Elizabeth Swann romance . . . but without the character developments. If I must be honest, Philip and Syrena’s romance nearly put me to sleep on several occasions. I feel sorry for actors Sam Claflin and Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey. They seemed like two decent actors forced to work with a pair of boring and undeveloped characters.

There were other problems I had with “On Stranger Tides”. The movie saw the return of Royal Navy officers Theodore Groves (from the first and third film) and Gillette (from the first film). What on earth did Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot did to their roles? Both characters almost seemed lobotomized. Well, Gillette did. Groves seemed to have lost his sense of humor. I recalled that he was a big fan boy of Jack in the first and third films. Yet, when he finally met Jack . . . nothing happened. He was too busy being a rather boring and stiff character. What happened to Jack and Barbossa’s own quests for the Fountain of Youth, which was first introduced in “At World’s End”? After a few years of failure, the audience is led to believe that Jack simply lost interest. And Barbossa’s earlier encounter with Blackbeard and the latter’s ship, Queen Anne’s Revenge, led to the loss of one leg and the Black Pearl. And how did Barbossa managed to survive the loss of his leg. Apparently, Barbossa had to cut off his leg to free from Blackbeard’s enchanted ship lines. So, how did he manage to keep himself from bleeding to death in the ocean? How did he manage to swim to safety with one leg?

And then we come to the mermaids. How did the mermaids manage to destroy Barbossa’s ship, the H.M.S. Providence? It was one thing to lure men from small boats or smash said boats. It was another to do the same to a large frigate. I have never heard of such a thing in the mermaid mythology. One last major problem I had with the movie dealt with the presence of the Spanish. Like the British, they were after the Fountain of Youth. Only their leader, known as the Spaniard (portrayed by Óscar Jaenada), called himself destroying the Fountain in the name of his king and the Catholic Church, as some kind of stance against paganism. Worse, he possessed the very chalices that needed to be used to drink the Fountain’s water. Yet, he did not bother to smash them, until he was at the Fountain’s location. Why? And what in the hell were Elliot and Rossio thinking? Why include such a storyline that proved to be irrelevant, epsecially since Jack was able to use the Fountain’s water after its so-called destruction?

I hear that Disney Studios and Bruckheimer are planning a fifth movie. I can understand this decision, considering that“On Stranger Tides” raked up a great deal of profit at the box office. Frankly, I wish they would change their minds. I honestly do not care how much money the movie had made. After watching it, I realized that a fourth movie should not have been made . . . at least from an artistic point of view. It featured too much sloppy writing and characterizations for me to truly enjoy. “On Stranger Tides” might prove to be the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movie that I cannot consider as a favorite.

Advertisements

“THE LOSERS” (2010) Review

“THE LOSERS” (2010) Review

For the umpteenth time, Hollywood took a comic book series and adapted it for the screen. One of the latest comic book movies to appear in the movie theater happened to be an adaptation of a Vertigo Comics series created by Andy Diggle called ”THE LOSERS”

Directed by Sylvain White, ”THE LOSERS” told the story of five members of an elite U.S. Special Forces team that is sent into the Bolivian jungle to search and destroy a notorious drug lord. But when their CIA handler, a wealthy man named Max, betrayed them with an attempt on their lives, the team made plans to even the score. They are joined by a mysterious woman who offered financial aid for an operation to ensure Max’s death and foil his plans to start a new high-tech global war.

”THE LOSERS” is obviously one of the latest in a never ending line of movie adaptations of comic book series and graphic novels. In other words, these adaptations are becoming a dime-a-dozen. But I had no idea that the movie was based upon a comic book series when I saw the trailers. Had I known, would I have avoided the movie? I rather doubt it. The trailer struck me as rather appealing, if I must be honest. Do I regret seeing the movie? Not at all.

I had expected to be mildly entertained by ”THE LOSERS”. Instead, I found it a great deal of fun to watch. Mind you, I had some problems with it. Sylvain White’s use of slow motion action became worrisome at times. The most annoying use of slow motion involved a love scene between the two leads – the leader of the Special Forces team and the mysterious woman. I mean . . . honestly. Slow motion sex? It brought back memories of certain love scenes from television dramas and miniseries in the 1970s and 80s. I was not particularly impressed by John Ottman’s score for the movie. And I never understood the need for a fight scene between the two leads – when the mysterious woman approached the team leader in order to form an alliance against Max.

Quibbles aside, I still enjoyed the movie very much. One, screenwriters Peter Berg and James Vanderbilt created a very entertaining story filled with sharp humor and plenty of exciting action. Even better, Berg and Vanderbilt provided plenty of angst, revenge, mistrust and betrayal that gave extra bites to the movie. The action featured in the movie struck me as pretty first-rate. I was especially impressed with the action sequences in Bolivia and the movie’s final showdown in Los Angeles.

By the way, I have to say that the cast turned out to be the movie’s best asset. Jeffrey Dean Morgan led the cast as Lieutenant Colonel Franklin Clay, leader of the Losers. Morgan’s Clay is as tough and ruthless as they come. Yet, the actor did a great job in balancing his character’s ruthlessness with streaks of idealism and compassion that sometimes proved to be his Achilles heel. Idris Elba portrayed Captain William Roque, the team’s second-in-command. Elba’s subtle portrayal of Roque is a cooler personality with a dangerous and self-serving edge that made him quite unpredictable. And his screen personality proved to be just as strong and dynamic as Morgan’s. Chris Evans proved to be hilarious as ever, portraying the team’s computer expert, Corporal Jake Jensen. Evans also created a funny screen chemistry with Columbus Short, who portrayed Sergeant Linwood ‘Pooch’ Porteous, the team’s transportation expert. I was also impressed by Short, whose performance struck me as wry and very witty. And Óscar Jaenada gave a charismatic performance as Sergeant Carlos ‘Cougar’ Alvarez, the team’s gifted marksman with only a few lines. But the most impressive performance in my book belonged to Zoe Saldaña, who portrayed Aisha, the mysterious woman who recruited the Losers to seek revenge against Max. Her Aisha was not only a skilled arms handler and fighter, she was also intense and extremely complex. However, she certainly had stiff competition from not only Morgan and Elba, but from also Jason Patric. Who, by the way, gave a sardonic, yet off-beat performance as the team’s murderous, yet manipulative CIA handler, Max.

While watching ”THE LOSERS”, it occurred to me that its film style strongly reminded me of another comic adaptation, 2008’s ”WANTED”. Granted, the older movie seemed to have superior production values and bigger stars. But I still found”THE LOSERS” more enjoyable. Why? Aside from the hotel fight scene between Morgan and Saldaña, Sylvain White did not indulge in too much over-the-top action sequences and graphic gore. Also, ”THE LOSERS” definitely possessed a sharper sense of humor and a more solid story, thanks to Berg and Vanderbilt’s script. Those traits, along with a strong cast made ”THE LOSERS” one of my favorite movies of this year’s spring season.