Release Date: May 20, 2011
Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.
Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.
Category: Sequel
Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.
Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.
As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.
Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.
Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.
The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.
Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.
The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.
The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.
In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.
Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.
Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.
Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.
I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.
But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .
Nope, that's all I remember.
On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)
The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"
So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.
Ugh.
The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?
And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.
The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.
I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.
Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.
I do love the music!
Friday, January 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good point about Jack Sparrow being made the hero, Mike. I was disappointed in the ending because Jack didn't make any kind of real choice--but of course, making the BIG LIFE-ALTERING CHOICE isn't Jack's job. Jack is just Jack.
I think we are supposed to believe the missionary survived and became a merman. I say that NOT just because I am a romantic or because he isn't struggling as she carries him into the deep but also because I think that the theme of the movie was supposed to be faith. When the mermaid says, "All you have to do is ask [to be saved]," and he says, "Do you forgive me?" he is showing faith (also, previous sailors weren't asked before they were captured, so presumably asking means something different from just being devoured).
Okay, the theme of faith is TOTALLY lost amid all the plots and subplots, but there are enough references to indicate that at some point, somebody actually thought about it. The Fountain of Youth represents a desire for a "sure thing" rather than faith in the future. Black Beard's daughter has faith her father's soul can be saved. The missionary has faith that the mermaid is not despised by God. Jack has to have faith at various points: to jump off the cliff, for example. At the end of the movie, Jack also makes a kind of "Que sera sera" statement about how one deals with the future.
I point these out ONLY to add that the script does NOT make clear what it is trying to say. I think the theme is there because somebody started to write it in, not because anyone bothered to make it a factor in how the script was revised!
You're right Kate, in the end I think they just tacked some stuff on.
While I know what the writer and director meant for us to think, I can't help but go by the evidence presented in the work itself.
The intended message and the message ultimately delivered are sometimes so different I can't help but be mystified.
I felt the same way about Twilight and Brokedown Palace. In twilight, we are supposed to think that Edward and Bella have wonderful fantasy romance that is the truest love anyone could find. But the actual novel provides no real reason behind the love between the two (well, a little for Edward, I guess). Instead, it establishes that Vampires emit an intoxicating pheromone to attract and control their Prey. And then the novel goes on to explain that Bella needs to be around Edward in order to continue to feel good.
Even though I know what the writer meant to convey, I can't help but come to the conclusion that Bella was actually just a pheromone addict!
Brokedown Palace, about two teenagers sent to a third world prison, is supposed to be about friendship and sacrifice in the face of being wrongfully accused. The movie however never fully explains who was to blame. As such, whenever I watch it I can't help but blame the Clair Dane's character for the whole mess! She did it!
And so, in Pirates when the men say that there are no mermen, and that is why mermaids kidnap human men, they really should have changed that to allow for the possibility of a positive end for the cleric.
Instead, based on the evidence provided in the movie, there is no precedent for a positive outcome.
As you say, the fault is in the writing. However, execution can so often alter the point.
The difference between intended message and conveyed message always been something that fascinated me. I've never really believed that there is no definitive interpretation to art; The artist had something in mind when he created it, and that must be the true meaning.
However, if that piece of art fails in communicating that message, is it still a successful piece of art?
In the case of "On Stranger Tides", no. But I wonder what other things I've read and seen (That I really enjoyed) where I came away with something completely different than what the writer intended?
Oh, I totally believe in authorial accountability! I agree that if the author(s) don't sell the message or the action, they can't claim later that they did. Like I never really believed in Xander dumping Anya at the altar and no amount of after-the-fact explanations from the writers could convince me.
On the other hand, I also believe in sui generis ideas (actually, I think I just like using the term sui generis): ideas that take on a life of their own. So I watch On Stranger Tides and think, "Wow, they really messed up some good material here," then I rewrite the material in my head. Voila! I now have an image/concept/story that lives separately from its source rattling around in my brain.
But like you, Mike, I balk at claiming that this somehow lets the original source off the hook; I never cared for literature classes that went with the whole "The work is what people say it is" approach. I prefer, "The work is what people prove it is" approach. The experience may be individual, but once the work is submitted to a standard, relativity no longer applies. Claims must be defended by evidence.
Of course, that brings up the whole "What is evidence?" issue. Something like On Stranger Tides is kind of fun in this regard because the evidence for what the writers intended is mixed in with what they actually accomplished/conveyed. They kind of threw everything on the screen and hoped for the best. But I would have to agree that ultimately, evidence for "The mermaid and cleryman live happily ever after" is, uh, somewhat lacking.
Post a Comment