ON STRANGER TIDES- Pirates 4 Review

There's a strong argument, mostly being made by myself, that Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides is the sequel we always should have had to the 2003 swashbuckler that started it all. I don't mean that it's the best sequel possible, but that it's following the formula of the Indiana Jones films by bringing back one or two characters from previous instalments and telling a new adventure, rather than going for cod-epic storytelling.

It's not completely without ties to the impenetrable mush of At World's End, as it picks up with Captain Jack Sparrow having seemingly given up on his search for the Fountain of Youth, on which we left him sailing into the sunset. As he arrives in England, it's revealed that an impostor is posing as Jack, with plans to recruit a crew and mount a search for the Fountain themselves. Jack is soon drawn into a race for eternal life, between a Spanish Armada, his old foe Captain Barbossa and the legendary Captain Blackbeard.

It's after watching this latest instalment that I realise I have a strange affinity with the series. The first one is unabashedly enjoyable, but there tends to be more debate on the quality of the two sequels, and with good reason. Heard of "Six Characters in Search of an Author"? The first three Pirates of the Caribbean films serve as "Three Films in Search of a Trilogy", with the convoluted ties to the first film and over-plotted action outright ruining the series for some point.

As for my own affinity, I don't dislike the series as certain other reviewers do. I recognise that At World's End is a load of bullshit, concerned with such contrived devices as "the ninth Piece of Eight" or whatever the hell that film was about, and that Dead Man's Chest didn't so much end as trail the third instalment. But on their own merits, I found things to enjoy in each of those movies. And so I suspect that while the consensus will be against On Stranger Tides, I found more to enjoy here than in the previous sequels.

That said, it still doesn't hold itself very well. It's a good half an hour shorter than the previous instalment, but that still makes it 137 minutes, when there's a much more enjoyable 100 minute film sitting within, waiting for an editor to piece it together. The action takes about 45 minutes to get going, and when it does, there's no real drive or thrust to the plot. My earlier comparison to Indy earlier on works here, as the hunt for the Fountain of Youth resembles the plot of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at times, but while that film has one group of characters to root for, screenwriters Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio plump for a sprawling cast. Again.

Another of the problems carried over from its immediate predecessors in the series is the lack of a villain. Geoffrey Rush is the best thing in this one, but his Captain Barbossa, so brilliant an antagonist on the first outing, has long since become more of an anti-hero. In this one, he's even a privateer for the English, albeit with ulterior motives. I suppose the de facto antagonist here is Blackbeard, played by an underused Ian McShane. As usual then, it resorts to having the characters argue a lot and double-cross one another.

Rob Marshall replaces Gore Verbinski in the director's chair, but it's Elliot and Rossio who need to be ushered out, because they just never seem to get to the point. For instance, there's a scene in which a character is forced to jump off a cliff, to an uncertain fate. Before that character eventually jumps, we have a refusal, some argument, emotional blackmail, a ridiculously redundant Russian Roulette set-up and a bit of hoodoo, before the character just jumps anyway. And don't get me started on Keith Richards.

They also seem to have no sense of timing, as writers. If you pay attention to the dialogue, you realise that the plot takes place over a fortnight. After a great opening sequence set in London, the progression of time is thus- one scene in daylight, and then an extended setpiece at night. Most of this movie takes place in the dark, which not only makes the sunny Caribbean settings pointless, but also probably makes for great viewing in super-dim 3D. I stuck with 2D, personally, though I concede I was sort of impressed by the 3D in the trailers for the film.

I enjoyed On Stranger Tides enough that I really want to say good things about it, so I shall. Johnny Depp shows no signs of getting bored in the lead role, and if you're not bored of him playing it either, he's still a lot of fun to watch as Captain Jack. Some of the action is a little repetitive, four films in, but there are two really good setpieces at the beginning and at the midpoint. I think I'd personally have opened the film on the latter, which is an excellently constructed scene that establishes the film's take on mermaids. Then again, I'd also have got it done in 100 minutes.

Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides marks a partial return to the entertaining form of The Curse of the Black Pearl, but as with latter instalments, it is still slightly discordant. To refer to Pirandello again, it's like Six Subplots in Search of a Movie, because there's not much to the McGuffin that's supposed to actually unite the strands. I found it enjoyable, but it did string out my enjoyment across the laborious running time. For some, it will be a step too far, if your enjoyment has been strung out since the first film, but it's still a step in the right direction. Let's have a change in the writing department next time though.

Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides is now showing in 2D and 3D at cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Pirates of the Caribbean- On Stranger Tides, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

WINNIE THE POOH- Review

What's the measure of a film? In recent years, we've seen Ridley Scott's Robin Hood, Roland Emmerich's 2012 and some arsehole's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen over-run by a vast margin, and given how bored I was by each of them, it would be difficult to say that I felt I got my money's worth from those lengthy films. So it's baffling to see the negative reviews of Winnie the Pooh, which runs to 54 minutes long.

Not that the short length of the main feature is the only criticism that certain grumpy bastards are levelling at this return to the Hundred Acre Wood, but it's a criticism that is paradoxical. Winnie the Pooh is not hugely story-driven, nor has it ever been. Indeed, the Disney features usually consist of episodes, which in this case include Eeyore losing his tail and Pooh Bear being unable to get some eats no matter what he tries. And it's pretty much a perfectly pitched film.

It's not a film that invites paragraphs upon paragraphs of deep analysis, but the response to the length seems worth mentioning. At 54 minutes, the film doesn't outstay its welcome- brevity is the soul of wit, and I find myself wishing that other kids' films would be as concise. Take Rio- a film I like, but one which has 20 minutes in the middle where an army of capuchin monkeys come and go, seemingly to bulk out the running time to 95 minutes.

Winnie the Pooh isn't filling a 90 minute quota which, if we're honest, people use less as a barometer of a satisfying length for family films and more as the optimum amount of time to distract their kids. Perhaps it explains Disney's lack of marketing for what's easily going to be the most satisfying film they release this year. There's no false economy in a programme that lasts 73 minutes overall, and it's a weird attitude to have. And even if your tastes are more grown up, this film's certainly more worthy of your money than Your Highness (102 minutes) or Red Riding Hood (100 minutes).

As to the film itself, it's beautifully rendered in the storybook fashion of the older Disney animations, and it either brings back or emulates all of the original vocal performances. In a weird way then, it compares to Scream 4, seeing as how it updates what we know rather than rebooting. Imagine a reboot that was a live action and CG-hybrid, in the vein of that bloody Smurfs movie that's coming out. Wisely, Disney opted for the nostalgic route, with a film that took me back to my childhood like no other in recent memory.

The characters are there as you know and love them. The gloomy and depressed Eeyore comes to the fore on account of his missing tail and Pooh roams from house to house, bugging his friends for honey so he can get a fix and at various points demonstrating his serious addiction issues. Jings, this is sounding like a Mike Leigh film- told you it doesn't invite deep analysis. It's just lovely, really. Older critics have taken issue with the usual divergence from the source material, but personally, I grew up with the cartoons, not the book.

There's no condescending to the material on my part here- Winnie the Pooh is an outright good film. I can't hope to sway more mature audiences to buy tickets if they don't have kids or young relatives, but hell, it looks good and it's the only film in a long time to put a big smile on my face from start to finish. It's good humoured, it's not ticking the same old boxes as every other CG-animation out there, and it's a real nostalgic treat.

Winnie the Pooh is now playing in cinemas nationwide.

Just as Jake and the Neverland Pirates and The Ballad of Nessie bulk out the programme, my brief reviews will bulk out this short review. The Ballad of Nessie, centring around the Loch Ness Monster after she's turfed out of her original home by developers and featuring the vocals of Billy Connolly, is a perfect appetiser for the main attraction.

Poetic and lovely stuff, which, by contrast, Jake and the Neverland Pirates really isn't. Apparently a teaser for a Disney Channel show based around Disney's rendition of Peter Pan, it sells a show that's gonna be unimaginative and just generally cheesy. A damning indictment for an animation aimed at 4 year olds? Yes, because it was followed by TWO perfectly enjoyable animations aimed at 4 year olds...

------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Winnie the Pooh, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

TANGLED- Review

I make no secret of the fact that I heartily enjoyed last year's very traditional Disney outing The Princess and the Frog. I think it's great that John Lasseter is steering the company back towards its roots after Dreamworks and Shrek took up residence in the fairytale movie market. Adding more to the weight of my own anticipation for their new feature Tangled, it's Disney's 50th animated movie, and apparently the second most expensive movie ever made, somehow.

Anyhoo, this $260 million animation (no, really) is essentially the story of Rapunzel, as seen through the lens of the charismatic fugitive Flynn Rider. Flynn is wanted, dead or alive, and he hides out in Rapunzel's tower in order to escape the law. He doesn't count on the long-haired teen being so determined to get out of the tower for a while, and solve the mystery of the floating lanterns that fill the sky every year on her birthday.

Again, I really liked The Princess and the Frog, so this one is going to suffer slightly by comparison. As ever, this is my own opinion on the film, and so you could argue that it's for a much younger audience, my inclusion in which I've long since outgrown. I just don't think that Tangled measures up, especially after the promising reinvigoration seen in Disney's 49th feature. That film has a timeless quality that made it reminiscent of Disney's best. Aside from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, how many other films made in 1937 would your kids sit through just as happily as if it had been made today?

What Tangled goes for is more in the vein of the modern spin on fairytales, which Dreamworks has conflated to the millionth degree in their Shrek canon. For starters, it's trying to get boys as excited to see it as girls, hence the slightly ambiguous title. This attention to including its audience is probably more to do with the fact that it cost $260 million than any real desire to entertain young boys who are otherwise distracted by their XBoxes. If Cinderella had cost that much, they might have called it The Magic Pumpkin. A $260 million Sleeping Beauty might be The Dragon Witch. A hyper-expensive Bambi might have been Deers Get Shot, Ha Ha Ha Ha. And so on.

In the actual film, there are occasionally points where the all-inclusive approach actually does work. From a studio whose most profitable franchise features pirates, figures renowned for their raping, pillaging and stealing, it's not surprising that they have a roguish criminal like Flynn as a leading man, but slightly more surprising that he's so unlikeable. Audiences are more likely to be entertained by Maximus, a palace steed with more detective skills than any of the humans. This Inspector Horse figure is the best reason to see Tangled, and injects most of the film's humour whenever he appears. Similarly, I enjoyed the caricatured ruffians in the film, voiced by the likes of Ron Perlman, Richard Kiel and Brad Garrett.

I'd also give kudos for the villain, even if she doesn't get a badass Disney villain song in the tradition of her predecessors. Mother Gothel is a character with proper motivations, and when you get the villain right in a Disney fairytale, half the battle is already won. My disappointment at the lack of a good old villainous sing-song extends to the rest of Alan Menken's soundtrack too. Aside from the rather brilliant "I Have A Dream", which simultaneously subverts and conforms with the traditional Disney "here are my objectives" song, it's all very generic and poppy. It could come from any 90s Disney film, and with one particular song, I'm not convinced it wasn't from another film. It's a real comedown after Randy Newman's jazz-themed work on The Princess and the Frog.

From the perspective of a Disney fan who had every reason to really enjoy this one after last year's effort, I was slightly disappointed by Tangled. I can't help but think it might have charmed me more if it were a hand-drawn 2D feature rather than a polished CG piece that's closer to Dreamworks' output than anything else. The CG stuff looks nice and there are some very artful shots in here, but it somehow has less character than hand-drawn animation. That said, the family audience is under-served by January's releases, and this is never less than fun and cheerful. I'm sure those much touted younger audiences will lap it up, and all of my persnickety quibbles aside, I didn't dislike it either.

Tangled is now showing in 3D at cinemas nationwide, and at selected cinemas in 2D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Tangled, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

TRON: LEGACY- Review

There is actually a sequel to Tron. And it comes almost three decades after the release of the original. We are now in a realm where all things are possible, and there's nothing Grid-like about it. I saw Tron for the first time yesterday evening, right before catching a midnight screening of Tron: Legacy. I may profess myself disappointed by Tron, but believe me, it's got nothing on the sequel as a sheer letdown.

The sequel picks up with Kevin Flynn having taken his company Encom to its peak after the ending of the first film, but then he disappears, leaving his young son Sam behind, all alone. Flash forward two decades and Sam gets a message that suggests his father might still be around, living in the computerised world known as the Grid and working on a breakthrough that could change the course of human history. Sam ventures into the Grid, and finds his father in hiding from his own digital counterpart, Clu, who rules the state with a pixellated iron fist.

At least Tron: Legacy starts how it means to go on, with an on-screen notice about how this 3D presentation features many 2D scenes. It only compounds the dishonesty of the gimmick by playing out this disclaimer only after cinema patrons have forked out extra for the "3D experience", taken their seats and sat through ten to twenty minutes of ads and trailers. The film starts out low, and continues to disappoint, specifically in how it looks in completely the other direction to its predecessor.

Even if Tron isn't that impressive, and looks dated by today's visual standards, prominently on display in this film in particular, there's a prescience about it. Tron was released before the Internet was widely known, but its relation of the inside of a computer to arcade games and social interaction could well be linked to the world wide web. In Tron: Legacy, every single thing is not only understandable in terms of every development in cinema and technology that has happened since, but also identical to them in so many ways.

It even borrows heavily from the first film in the name of in-jokes and references. Lines are repeated, shots are recreated, and it's practically a remake in all things except for the continuing arc of the elder Flynn, played by Jeff Bridges. Bridges plays Flynn very well, although burdened with a suddenly emergent tree-hugger outlook, but even the Dude himself can't manage to salvage Clu from the haze of overhyped de-aging SFX. There's not a single frame where Flynn's ageless doppelganger looks photo-real, even when framed alongside the computer generated vistas of the Grid. For his part though, Bridges does a damn fine job- it's always a pleasure to see him as nature intended.

With regard to other intertextual gubbins, the first half hour plods along with Center City looking an awful lot like Christopher Nolan's Gotham. And we're introduced to Garrett Hedlund's Sam, a protagonist so impossibly vacant that he couldn't be more dull if he were played by Shia LaBeouf. To break the monotony, he dives off buildings and breaks into corporate headquarters- in 2D, mind you- in a number of other scenes reminiscent of The Dark Knight. This also sadly includes how seriously it takes itself, which works less well for lightcycles and electric data frisbees than it does for a masked vigilante fighting mob rule.

Poor Michael Sheen also has very little to work with, and frankly, he's made to look like a twat in his role as Castor, the film's most useless and inexplicable character, who runs a disco for programs on the Grid, for some reason. He enlivens the proceedings in much the same way as Jar Jar Binks enlivened The Phantom Menace, and I'm not exaggerating. Olivia Wilde comes off rather better in her naive warrior woman role as Quorra, making her the most magnetic screen presence by default and a joy to watch whenever she gets to bounce off of Jeff Bridges.

Many negative reviews have said that Tron: Legacy is to Tron as The Matrix Reloaded is to The Matrix. I'm going to go one further, having already invoked Jar Jar. It's funny that Tron came out of a period in Disney's history when they tried to find the next Star Wars, and now years later, this sequel comes close to the drudgery that characterised George Lucas' largely abysmal prequels. It's not as bad as either Episode I or II, but it has all the clunky dialogue, over-reliance on visual effects and general matter-of-fact-ness about it that made those films such a pain.

Tron: Legacy might have decent special effects, but it looks and feels like the moodiest night out you'll ever have, set in a giant orange and blue neon-lit club where nothing really registers as important.  I've been wrong before, but I think Disney may have made a $200 million mistake. It's taking the slot in which Avatar broke the bank in 2009, and it's a similar mish-mash of recent developments that's not even as good as "Dances with Wolves in space". It feels like it goes on for way longer than its two hours, and the script is too incredibly convoluted to forgive or even to follow. Despite occasional and apparently accidental lapses into real entertainment, and great performances from Olivia Wilde and the proper Jeff Bridges, this last hope in a dismal Christmas movie schedule is a massive letdown.

Tron: Legacy is now showing in 2D and 3D, at cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Tron: Legacy, why not share your comments below? If you think the Star Wars prequel comparisons are a tad harsh, come back when you've seen the film and your lexicon of words to describe the sun is suitably expanded...

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.