The newest Pirates of the Caribbean film, On Stranger Tides, isn't exactly a disaster, but that's not as reassuring as you might think. The movie is lacking in nearly every way: the plot, the acting, the strangely stunted sense of scope (despite visually sumptuous locations), even the villain feels less imposing than he ought to. I'm half tempted to chalk it up to director Rob Marshall, who was not only taking over for Gore Verbinski after three films, but has a track record (Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha, Nine) that in no way prepares him for a rousing adventure film of swash-buckling and derring do. But I don't know that I'm willing to hang it all on Marshall - the story doesn't really work in the first place.
Why the story - a overly complicated race to find the Fountain of Youth featuring zombies, mermaids, and Blackbeard - is incongruous with the other films is due in large part to the fact that returning screenwriters Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio built their script around Tim Powers's On Stranger Tides. The film, accordingly, feels like characters from earlier Pirates films shoehorned into a separate narrative, one that can hardly accommodate them. At first it seemed odd to me that a series that managed to incorporate Davey Jones, voodoo curses, the Kraken, the afterworld, and undead pirates would be unable to intermingle with zombified crew members, mermaids, and the Fountain of Youth (hinted at in At World's End), but the end result is a movie that shouldn't have Jack Sparrow in it but does.
Speaking of which, I don't know what Johnny Depp was thinking during On Stranger Tides. It's as though he knows he supposed to be playing Jack Sparrow, but often forgets under the demands of playing the lead (a semi-romantic lead at that), so for much of the film he's painfully ordinary, and then as though he's remembered he's playing Captain Jack, Depp will swagger or make a funny face. The performance is uneven at best, but then again Jack Sparrow should never be the lead of one of the Pirates films. He functions best as a secondary character - a ruthless, conniving trouble maker with rotten luck - as a counterpoint to Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. If coupled with compelling leads and a strong villain, Depp is able to shine and be loopy. On his own, he's adrift.
And there's nobody in On Stranger Tides to help take the attention away from Depp's "am I or am I not Jack Sparrow" routine. Penelope Cruz doesn't have much to do as Angelica Teach, daughter of Blackbeard and someone who Jack (possibly) corrupted at a young age. Depp and Cruz do their damnedest to generate chemistry, and while the effort is evident, the end result is less than palpable. Worse off is Sam Clafin as Phillip, a missionary being held captive aboard The Queen Anne's Revenge, who has as much chemistry with fellow captive Astrid Bergès-Frisbey (as mermaid Syreena) as a couple of mops in a bucket. Their story is so uninteresting that I failed to care a) when Blackbeard appears to kill Phillip, and b) when the film never bothers to explain exactly how Syreena "saves" him near the end.
Oh, speaking of Blackbeard, it's probably fair to note just how unimpressive Ian McShane is in a role that should have fit him like a glove. Instead of the imposing presence that Edward Teach ought to be, given that he has a supernatural power over his very ship, McShane underplays Blackbeard at every opportunity. I never once believed he was dangerous, capable of betrayal, or short tempered and cruel enough to murder people (even though he does). The sense of urgency surrounding his need to find the Fountain - due to a prophecy of his death - also never connect in McShane's face. He says all the right things, but one never believes that he's really concerned about anything. Instead of towering, he's annoying - his cruelty is tacked on and half-hearted.
Only Geoffery Rush emerges with something close to a memorable performance, though it takes the better half of the film for Barbossa to emerge as anything more than a stooge for the Royal Navy. Stephen Graham (Boardwalk Empire, Snatch) has flashes as Scrum, the sort of substitute Gibbs (although actual Gibbs, Kevin McNally, is in the film and traveling with Barbossa). Keith Richards has a perfunctory cameo that makes even less sense than his appearance in At World's End. By the end of the film I'd forgotten that Richard Griffiths (Withnail & I) played the King.
So Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides sometimes looks nice, is sometimes entertaining, but not really good enough to make it more than a movie you could wander in and out of freely. Pay no attention to the mermaid tears or silver chalices or the rules of finding the fountain, because they really don't matter. They belong to another story, one without a nice wrap-up scene featuring Gibbs and Jack on the beach, explaining what just happened. Unfortunately we have this middling affair, not bad enough to be avoided and not good enough to recommend. If you, like me, were invested in the previous films, then On Stranger Tides is likely to keep you half involved for two hours and fifteen minutes, but the nagging feeling you could have watched something better will creep up repeatedly.
Showing posts with label piracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label piracy. Show all posts
Friday, November 25, 2011
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Doughnuts, do-dee-do-de-do, Doughnuts!
I'm not really sure why it's worth weighing in on the "Wolverine" situation, but I have nothing else really pressing in my "to discuss" column today.
For those of you who aren't movie pirates or don't follow film sites, it appears that thereabouts April 1st, a not-even-remotely April Fool's day joke happened when someone posted 20th Century Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie online. I don't know where you can find it so please don't ask. I don't care enough about the movie to even start sifting through those channels to locate it. It's out there, I guess if you're so inclined you could find it.
Whether you should or not is totally up to you. Like I said: The Cap'n doesn't care. I don't represent 20th Century Fox and have no vested interest in the film. What I find interesting is the ensuing debate going on about sites like Ain't It Zoul News refusing to accept reviews.
Fox is doing exactly what they should do: hunting down the culprit and arresting the shit out of them. They spent millions of dollars (admittedly, on a movie that people don't seem to like) on this particular film and it was leaked without their permission. Fair enough. Regardless of how I sometimes feel about 20th Century Fox and how they handle their properties, they have the right to protect their investments.
Once upon a time, The Cap'n knew several people who had access to movies before they were available (in theatres or on dvd) and yes, I saw a few of them. I won't lie. American Psycho, Insomnia, Dogma, One Hour Photo, and a number of others. Half of it occurred during the "unprotected Academy Screener" phase and the other half in the early 2000's, when "bootlegs" were chopped in half to fit on CD-R's.
I had a friend get in trouble for distributing movies online when we lived on-campus. Universal apparently didn't care for that, but he had a nice RD and the situation was resolved without litigation. The point is that I understand the "other" side as well; sharing movies obtained online wasn't something done for money but merely to share the movie with others. I can still remember a guy who had a copy of The Blair Witch Project months before it opened locally, so I can see how this is still going on.
What I am a little fuzzy about is the double standard of asking people not to send in "reviews" of a movie leaked online from sites that regularly posted pictures, script reviews, and artwork online only to have it "pulled" with similar legal threats. If the script was sold to the studio, it belongs to the studio, so unless you work for that studio and were paid to "leak" a review, it's stolen property. Please feel free to correct me if this is erroneous.
If you don't want to post reviews of the film, that's fine, but please stop posting other related images or script reviews if the issue is "copyright infringement". Personally, I think things like early looks at Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter or the Tron footage that Disney doesn't seem to be pulling are good ways to create word-of-mouth interest.
Most (if not all) of the movies I was privy to in the past were also things we saw in theatres and bought on dvd. It's the only way I know that One Hour Photo has a different beginning that's nowhere to be found on the dvd, but I don't mind having the "officially" released version. I'm not a movie pirate, nor do I have issue with either side doing what they do (studios and pirates). If you both can "get away with it", so to speak, then by all means do it.
I don't really trust Bit-Torrent and the turnaround these days is close enough that the Cap'n can wait if he doesn't see it on the big screen. I wasn't planning on watching Wolverine so it's pretty much a non-issue for me. I just find the reaction online to be strange, especially from places that pride themselves on "scoops".
For those of you who aren't movie pirates or don't follow film sites, it appears that thereabouts April 1st, a not-even-remotely April Fool's day joke happened when someone posted 20th Century Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie online. I don't know where you can find it so please don't ask. I don't care enough about the movie to even start sifting through those channels to locate it. It's out there, I guess if you're so inclined you could find it.
Whether you should or not is totally up to you. Like I said: The Cap'n doesn't care. I don't represent 20th Century Fox and have no vested interest in the film. What I find interesting is the ensuing debate going on about sites like Ain't It Zoul News refusing to accept reviews.
Fox is doing exactly what they should do: hunting down the culprit and arresting the shit out of them. They spent millions of dollars (admittedly, on a movie that people don't seem to like) on this particular film and it was leaked without their permission. Fair enough. Regardless of how I sometimes feel about 20th Century Fox and how they handle their properties, they have the right to protect their investments.
Once upon a time, The Cap'n knew several people who had access to movies before they were available (in theatres or on dvd) and yes, I saw a few of them. I won't lie. American Psycho, Insomnia, Dogma, One Hour Photo, and a number of others. Half of it occurred during the "unprotected Academy Screener" phase and the other half in the early 2000's, when "bootlegs" were chopped in half to fit on CD-R's.
I had a friend get in trouble for distributing movies online when we lived on-campus. Universal apparently didn't care for that, but he had a nice RD and the situation was resolved without litigation. The point is that I understand the "other" side as well; sharing movies obtained online wasn't something done for money but merely to share the movie with others. I can still remember a guy who had a copy of The Blair Witch Project months before it opened locally, so I can see how this is still going on.
What I am a little fuzzy about is the double standard of asking people not to send in "reviews" of a movie leaked online from sites that regularly posted pictures, script reviews, and artwork online only to have it "pulled" with similar legal threats. If the script was sold to the studio, it belongs to the studio, so unless you work for that studio and were paid to "leak" a review, it's stolen property. Please feel free to correct me if this is erroneous.
If you don't want to post reviews of the film, that's fine, but please stop posting other related images or script reviews if the issue is "copyright infringement". Personally, I think things like early looks at Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter or the Tron footage that Disney doesn't seem to be pulling are good ways to create word-of-mouth interest.
Most (if not all) of the movies I was privy to in the past were also things we saw in theatres and bought on dvd. It's the only way I know that One Hour Photo has a different beginning that's nowhere to be found on the dvd, but I don't mind having the "officially" released version. I'm not a movie pirate, nor do I have issue with either side doing what they do (studios and pirates). If you both can "get away with it", so to speak, then by all means do it.
I don't really trust Bit-Torrent and the turnaround these days is close enough that the Cap'n can wait if he doesn't see it on the big screen. I wasn't planning on watching Wolverine so it's pretty much a non-issue for me. I just find the reaction online to be strange, especially from places that pride themselves on "scoops".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
