I was not one of the indie kids who knew about Death Cab back when they made "You Can Play These Songs With Chords," or whatever the name of one of their old albums was. No, I first learned about them when a friend lent me a copy of "Plans." I heard "Marching Bands of Manhattan" coming out of the speakers, and that was it. I liked them. Some of their songs, I liked a lot.
Since then, I've gone back and listened to bits of the other albums, including the entirety of "Transatlanticism." I have also liked a lot (although not all) of their other stuff, particularly the song "The New Year." Plans is still my favorite album, and Marching Bands is still probably my favorite song on the album.
All of that basically to say that I am a casual, not hard-core, fan of Death Cab. Nevertheless, I was excited to listen to Narrow Stairs, even though the single did absolutely nothing for me.
I mean, "I Will Possess Your Heart" grew on me a little after a while, but ultimately it is still just a pretty good bassline with other instrumentation that manages to be sometimes not boring. The lyrics are pretty good, but there aren't enough of them. The creepy stalker dude needs to be developed more.
Anyway, the main thing that everyone seems to commenting on about this album is how dark it is. I've seen the word "despairing" used more than once. While I wouldn't go nearly that far, it definitely was not written at a happy time for Ben Gibbard.
While a lot of their other work has been characterized by this odd kind of melancholy hopefulness, this one is just kind of depressing. However, it's not one of those depressing albums that people have to force themselves to enjoy. While the lyrics can be real downers sometimes, the music keeps things just light enough for us to keep listening and enjoying.
The album starts out on a sombre note with Bixby Canyon Bridge, a song about Gibbard trying to commune with his favorite (also: dead) author, Jack Kerouac. Gibbard's character is slightly haunted by his failure to do so and at his inability to find any real answers. "I trudged back to where the car was parked. No closer to any kind of truth, as I must assume was the case with you." Sad, but beautifully expressed.
Gibbard promised that he would make his lyrics more intelligible, and he does so with great effect on this album. He doesn't sacrifice the beauty of his songwriting; he just makes it so that you understand what he's trying to say. It's probably the best improvement that this album makes.
After the aforementioned stalker single, there's the song "No Sunlight." It's pretty catchy, but it is one of the several songs on the album that confuses the listener's senses.
While putting a sad song to happy music can work sometimes (see the excellent "Fifteen Candles" by Jars of Clay), oftentimes it works against the lyrics. It was hard to feel bad for Gibbard's predicament of being all sad because there's no sunlight while the music was so darn ... well ... sunny. There are actually several songs on the album that are this way, which is probably the album's biggest fault. While it works on the excellent "Cath...," a song about a woman entering a loveless marriage, it doesn't work so well for "No Sunlight," "Long Division" or "You Could Do Better Than Me" (actually, I'm still not sure if that last one is actually supposed to be happy or not).
However, the confusing lyric/music juxtaposition of a few songs notwithstanding, the album really is a good listen. Gibbard's voice has improved since Plans, especially noteworthy on the last song "The Ice Is Getting Thinner." However, my favorite song on the album is "Your New Twin Sized Bed." The jangly beat of the song isn't quite cheerful, and the lyrics manage to be slightly humorous while expressing the apprehension of loneliness, a big theme on the album.
In short: I like it. If you don't have the money, at least find a place to listen to Bixby Canyon Bridge, The Ice is Getting Thinner and Your New Twin Sized Bed.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Highly Successful Quest to Uphold His Own Legacy
WARNING: Some spoilers may occur. Also, it is long.
I love Indiana Jones. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is my favorite movie that isn't one of the original Star Wars flicks (and even then, if I'm honest, I might like it better than some of those). It contains the best opening scene I have ever seen (again, competing with the original Star Wars' massive Star Destroyer shot), Harrison Ford's perfect portrayal of the ultimate old-school action hero, a memorable supporting cast, villains like Belloq and that creepy dude with the coat hanger, breakneck--yet not streamlined--action sequences and so much more. And that's only in the first movie.
The second movie didn't really do it for me. Granted, I've only seen it once (the next time I watch it I'll probably enjoy it a bit more), but aside from the looks-like-it-was-pulled-from-a-better-movie opening nightclub shootout scene, much of the movie was lackluster (not a very compelling plot, fakey--even for this series--action and Kate Capshaw playing one of the most annoying human beings in history). Nevertheless, you still have to love Ford's character.
The third film got back to the best parts of Raiders: fighting Nazis and locating biblical artifacts. While not as adventuresome--or as overall fun--as Raiders, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's" addition of Sean Connery, combined with increased screen time for John Rhys-Davies and Denholm Elliot, still made for an excellent film that was more than a worthy successor to the brilliant original. It too resides in my top 10 list of movies.
I say this to illustrate my high anticipation for--and slight anxiety about--the new Harrison Ford/Steven Spielberg/George Lucas adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I wanted another movie that would live up to Indy 1 and 3. Jones is one of the best characters in the movies, a reboot of his franchise should do him justice.
While keeping myself mostly in the dark about the plot, I followed the development of the movie with great interest. I cringed a little when it was announced that Rhys-Davies and Connery weren't returning (Elliot is dead, although there is a prominent statue of his character in the new film), smiled when I found that Karen Allen (who played Jones' love in Raiders) was returning and died a little inside when I found out that Shia Labeouf was joining the new movie. Nevertheless, I remained optimistic, but all the while a little voice in the back of my mind was saying "I hope they don't screw it up."
After seeing the film at a midnight showing (and wearing a fedora-type hat), I can happily report that, not only does the film not "screw it up," it rightfully takes its place as another great movie in the Indiana Jones canon. I loved this movie. I absolutely loved it.
(OK BEGIN SPOILER ALERT: This next part is plot exposition. While I try to keep it mildly vague, I can make no promises. If you scroll down, I will have an end spoiler alert where you can keep reading)
It starts by establishing the time period for the film: 1957. Indy has aged 19 years since his last crusade, and the times have changed accordingly. As an American army convoy drives along a lonely New Mexican road, a carload of spunky youths in a hot rod race the car in the front of the convoy. It really does put you in the 50s mindset, as do the Cold War Russian villains, a nuclear test site (one of my favorite parts of the film) and a brief scene attesting to the ignorance of McCarthyism.
Anyway, the convoy is in for a bit of action at the military warehouse that they're traveling to, courtesy of a battered and greying Dr. Henry Jones Jr. He may be old, but that doesn't prevent him from being able to take out the baddies with an odd kind of reckless precision all his own. In fact, one scene where he and LaBeouf's character are in a Peruvian grave site contains one of the best villain deaths of the entire series (you'll know when you see it).
After a circuitous-but-still-loads-of-fun opening (which I will not ruin for you here), Jones meets LaBeouf's unfortunately-named character, Mutt. Let me stop here for a moment and say that LaBeouf does an excellent job in this movie. He's generally not trying to act annoying funny, that slippery slope that worked well in "Even Stevens" but failed miserably in "Transformers." Rather, he skillfully adapts to the humor of Ford and the series. He's a welcome addition.
Mutt and Jones read a letter sent by one of Jones' old professor buddies (he "happens" to be like a father to Mutt) that discusses a mythological crystal skull that he's found which holds some sort of unspecified power. The problem: some wonderfully stereotypical (no, I'm not being sarcastic) Communist Russians are after the skull too, and they've kidnapped the old professor. Thus, Jones and Mutt go to Peru to figure out what the fuss is about the skull and, hopefully, save the professor and Mutt's mom. They do this by flying in small planes that travel in red lines to labeled locales on old maps, one of the great trademarks of the entire series.
Once Jones and Mutt arrive in Peru, they decode some old riddles the professor had given them to track down the downright eerie crystal skull. Sadly, however, not only has the skull driven the poor professor insane, his captors find Jones and Mutt shortly after they find the skull. After they are taken to the Russian camp, they meet Mutt's mom, who is--SURPRISE--Marion Ravenwood, the Indy chick from the first movie (if you can feel a plot point coming on, you're not the only one).
The Russians need the old professor (whose name is Oxley), to show them where the city of gold is--oh, wait, I didn't mention the city of gold that used to house the skulls and promises the returner of the last skull unbelievable psychic power? Silly me. Anyway, old Oxley is loopy from too much time trying to figure out said skull, and the Russians enlist Indy to stare into the skull's eyes for a while so he can halfway communicate with Oxley.
After this, there are about four fight/escape scenes placed within short amounts of time of each other, but it doesn't feel frenetic or forced. Spielberg aptly places the fights at just the right intervals, and each action scene is completely different, and, in some cases, brilliantly inventive.
Once Jones and company escape from the baddies, they find the temple and go to return the skull, but then OH NO THEY ARE STOPPED BY THE BAD GUYS WHO WOULD HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING! Actually, most people, because this is what happens in Raiders and Last Crusade, but that's exactly why we want them to be stopped. The villainess then decides to give the skull back so that she can take the power for herself, and of course something mildly yucky happens to her (although it, rather unfortunately, isn't as severe as in Raiders or as inventive as in Last Crusade. Think more like the death of General Grievous from Star Wars III). Actually, this part of the movie was probably the weakest part for me. It was still entertaining, but it wasn't as awe-inspiring/creepy as Raiders or as action-packed as Crusade.
After this, a couple of other fun things happen, but I'll let you watch those yourself. Oh, and if you think I just revealed everything about the plot to you, I didn't. While the Indy movies always appear to have pretty straightforward plots, they are always laden with qualifiers, modifiers and OH WOW I WASN'T EXPECTING THIS moments.
(END SPOILER WARNING: read on for further commentary)
There were several points in the movie that caught me with a big silly 12-year-old-kid smile on my face. Spielberg and Lucas developed another story that brought Indy to life as a death-defying, wise (but not too wise)-cracking action adventure serial hero. They, much more so than Lucas with his Star Wars prequels, respected the original fans of Indiana Jones, and this movie plays just like another great installment of a great movie character. The plot is different from the other movies, but it borrows from them and homages them and generally sticks to their happy-go-lucky, "let's have a fistfight" spirit (adhering particularly close to Last Crusade).
There are two types of sequels: sequels that continue an ongoing story and sequels to a stand-alone story that tell a completely different one. The latter is a lot harder to do well (see Pirates 2 and 3). Indy 4, however, gets the formula right: pay homage to your predecessor, but don't ape it. Recognize and appreciate your roots (even give them a ribbing), but create your own story. Lucas and Spielberg have done that well.
Their story is all new. But who can forget the classic "panicked Indy look" from movies past as new Indy runs scared from his latest would-be killer? It's still there on his face. Who can forget his father and his friend Marcus? No one, and the movie pays tribute to them in fun, unobtrusive ways.
However, possibly the best thing about the movie is that, while you're having fun, you know that Lucas and especially Spielberg were having tons of fun and wanting to share that with their audiences. Not only are the action scenes wonderfully far-fetched and full of daring-do, but even the dialogue is laced with the wit and brazen outrageousness that matches the tone of all four films. Seriously, Indy's one-liners are about as good as ever in this film. At one point, I almost wished he would have been shot simply so that his "last words," as requested by the villainess, really could have been "I like Ike." I mean really, is there any better way to defiantly get mowed down by the Reds?
Anyhow, I've spent more than enough time ranting. Just go see the movie. It is truly a joy to behold.
P.S. I have been seeing many ads for "Kung-Fu Panda" as of late. It looks kind of dumb to me, but today I found out that Dustin Hoffman is in it. This means that I will probably end up watching it sometime.
P.P.S. I almost forgot. In the Indy canon, I rate this one well above Temple of Doom and just a couple of notches lower than Last Crusade. This one, while still containing high action and adventure, wasn't quite as epic as the the first and third installments. I think the reason is because the "thing" that Indy is after isn't biblical. The two films set in the Middle East do have a bit more gravity to them because you sense that the object they are after is more tangibly important. Still, a couple of notches below my fifth-favorite movie is a great place to be.
I love Indiana Jones. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is my favorite movie that isn't one of the original Star Wars flicks (and even then, if I'm honest, I might like it better than some of those). It contains the best opening scene I have ever seen (again, competing with the original Star Wars' massive Star Destroyer shot), Harrison Ford's perfect portrayal of the ultimate old-school action hero, a memorable supporting cast, villains like Belloq and that creepy dude with the coat hanger, breakneck--yet not streamlined--action sequences and so much more. And that's only in the first movie.
The second movie didn't really do it for me. Granted, I've only seen it once (the next time I watch it I'll probably enjoy it a bit more), but aside from the looks-like-it-was-pulled-from-a-better-movie opening nightclub shootout scene, much of the movie was lackluster (not a very compelling plot, fakey--even for this series--action and Kate Capshaw playing one of the most annoying human beings in history). Nevertheless, you still have to love Ford's character.
The third film got back to the best parts of Raiders: fighting Nazis and locating biblical artifacts. While not as adventuresome--or as overall fun--as Raiders, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's" addition of Sean Connery, combined with increased screen time for John Rhys-Davies and Denholm Elliot, still made for an excellent film that was more than a worthy successor to the brilliant original. It too resides in my top 10 list of movies.
I say this to illustrate my high anticipation for--and slight anxiety about--the new Harrison Ford/Steven Spielberg/George Lucas adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I wanted another movie that would live up to Indy 1 and 3. Jones is one of the best characters in the movies, a reboot of his franchise should do him justice.
While keeping myself mostly in the dark about the plot, I followed the development of the movie with great interest. I cringed a little when it was announced that Rhys-Davies and Connery weren't returning (Elliot is dead, although there is a prominent statue of his character in the new film), smiled when I found that Karen Allen (who played Jones' love in Raiders) was returning and died a little inside when I found out that Shia Labeouf was joining the new movie. Nevertheless, I remained optimistic, but all the while a little voice in the back of my mind was saying "I hope they don't screw it up."
After seeing the film at a midnight showing (and wearing a fedora-type hat), I can happily report that, not only does the film not "screw it up," it rightfully takes its place as another great movie in the Indiana Jones canon. I loved this movie. I absolutely loved it.
(OK BEGIN SPOILER ALERT: This next part is plot exposition. While I try to keep it mildly vague, I can make no promises. If you scroll down, I will have an end spoiler alert where you can keep reading)
It starts by establishing the time period for the film: 1957. Indy has aged 19 years since his last crusade, and the times have changed accordingly. As an American army convoy drives along a lonely New Mexican road, a carload of spunky youths in a hot rod race the car in the front of the convoy. It really does put you in the 50s mindset, as do the Cold War Russian villains, a nuclear test site (one of my favorite parts of the film) and a brief scene attesting to the ignorance of McCarthyism.
Anyway, the convoy is in for a bit of action at the military warehouse that they're traveling to, courtesy of a battered and greying Dr. Henry Jones Jr. He may be old, but that doesn't prevent him from being able to take out the baddies with an odd kind of reckless precision all his own. In fact, one scene where he and LaBeouf's character are in a Peruvian grave site contains one of the best villain deaths of the entire series (you'll know when you see it).
After a circuitous-but-still-loads-of-fun opening (which I will not ruin for you here), Jones meets LaBeouf's unfortunately-named character, Mutt. Let me stop here for a moment and say that LaBeouf does an excellent job in this movie. He's generally not trying to act annoying funny, that slippery slope that worked well in "Even Stevens" but failed miserably in "Transformers." Rather, he skillfully adapts to the humor of Ford and the series. He's a welcome addition.
Mutt and Jones read a letter sent by one of Jones' old professor buddies (he "happens" to be like a father to Mutt) that discusses a mythological crystal skull that he's found which holds some sort of unspecified power. The problem: some wonderfully stereotypical (no, I'm not being sarcastic) Communist Russians are after the skull too, and they've kidnapped the old professor. Thus, Jones and Mutt go to Peru to figure out what the fuss is about the skull and, hopefully, save the professor and Mutt's mom. They do this by flying in small planes that travel in red lines to labeled locales on old maps, one of the great trademarks of the entire series.
Once Jones and Mutt arrive in Peru, they decode some old riddles the professor had given them to track down the downright eerie crystal skull. Sadly, however, not only has the skull driven the poor professor insane, his captors find Jones and Mutt shortly after they find the skull. After they are taken to the Russian camp, they meet Mutt's mom, who is--SURPRISE--Marion Ravenwood, the Indy chick from the first movie (if you can feel a plot point coming on, you're not the only one).
The Russians need the old professor (whose name is Oxley), to show them where the city of gold is--oh, wait, I didn't mention the city of gold that used to house the skulls and promises the returner of the last skull unbelievable psychic power? Silly me. Anyway, old Oxley is loopy from too much time trying to figure out said skull, and the Russians enlist Indy to stare into the skull's eyes for a while so he can halfway communicate with Oxley.
After this, there are about four fight/escape scenes placed within short amounts of time of each other, but it doesn't feel frenetic or forced. Spielberg aptly places the fights at just the right intervals, and each action scene is completely different, and, in some cases, brilliantly inventive.
Once Jones and company escape from the baddies, they find the temple and go to return the skull, but then OH NO THEY ARE STOPPED BY THE BAD GUYS WHO WOULD HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING! Actually, most people, because this is what happens in Raiders and Last Crusade, but that's exactly why we want them to be stopped. The villainess then decides to give the skull back so that she can take the power for herself, and of course something mildly yucky happens to her (although it, rather unfortunately, isn't as severe as in Raiders or as inventive as in Last Crusade. Think more like the death of General Grievous from Star Wars III). Actually, this part of the movie was probably the weakest part for me. It was still entertaining, but it wasn't as awe-inspiring/creepy as Raiders or as action-packed as Crusade.
After this, a couple of other fun things happen, but I'll let you watch those yourself. Oh, and if you think I just revealed everything about the plot to you, I didn't. While the Indy movies always appear to have pretty straightforward plots, they are always laden with qualifiers, modifiers and OH WOW I WASN'T EXPECTING THIS moments.
(END SPOILER WARNING: read on for further commentary)
There were several points in the movie that caught me with a big silly 12-year-old-kid smile on my face. Spielberg and Lucas developed another story that brought Indy to life as a death-defying, wise (but not too wise)-cracking action adventure serial hero. They, much more so than Lucas with his Star Wars prequels, respected the original fans of Indiana Jones, and this movie plays just like another great installment of a great movie character. The plot is different from the other movies, but it borrows from them and homages them and generally sticks to their happy-go-lucky, "let's have a fistfight" spirit (adhering particularly close to Last Crusade).
There are two types of sequels: sequels that continue an ongoing story and sequels to a stand-alone story that tell a completely different one. The latter is a lot harder to do well (see Pirates 2 and 3). Indy 4, however, gets the formula right: pay homage to your predecessor, but don't ape it. Recognize and appreciate your roots (even give them a ribbing), but create your own story. Lucas and Spielberg have done that well.
Their story is all new. But who can forget the classic "panicked Indy look" from movies past as new Indy runs scared from his latest would-be killer? It's still there on his face. Who can forget his father and his friend Marcus? No one, and the movie pays tribute to them in fun, unobtrusive ways.
However, possibly the best thing about the movie is that, while you're having fun, you know that Lucas and especially Spielberg were having tons of fun and wanting to share that with their audiences. Not only are the action scenes wonderfully far-fetched and full of daring-do, but even the dialogue is laced with the wit and brazen outrageousness that matches the tone of all four films. Seriously, Indy's one-liners are about as good as ever in this film. At one point, I almost wished he would have been shot simply so that his "last words," as requested by the villainess, really could have been "I like Ike." I mean really, is there any better way to defiantly get mowed down by the Reds?
Anyhow, I've spent more than enough time ranting. Just go see the movie. It is truly a joy to behold.
P.S. I have been seeing many ads for "Kung-Fu Panda" as of late. It looks kind of dumb to me, but today I found out that Dustin Hoffman is in it. This means that I will probably end up watching it sometime.
P.P.S. I almost forgot. In the Indy canon, I rate this one well above Temple of Doom and just a couple of notches lower than Last Crusade. This one, while still containing high action and adventure, wasn't quite as epic as the the first and third installments. I think the reason is because the "thing" that Indy is after isn't biblical. The two films set in the Middle East do have a bit more gravity to them because you sense that the object they are after is more tangibly important. Still, a couple of notches below my fifth-favorite movie is a great place to be.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Backlog: Prince Caspian highs and lows
(Warning: if you have not read the book, this may contain spoilers)
I saw Prince Caspian on Saturday night. It was a pretty good movie. The slightly melancholy thing is that it could have been a really good movie. However, I was expecting it to be pretty good all the way through, and instead it had an excellent beginning, a solid finish and a rotten middle. So, I can both be pleasantly surprised and a tad disappointed at the overall quality of the film.
The beginning was absolutely great. It was exciting, visually impressive and true to both the events and the spirit of the book. There were a few minor issues with Peter being kind of a jerk, but overall this part of the movie plays out beautifully. I especially liked the portrayal of Nikabrik (right out of the book and just as I pictured him), Reepicheep (who I feared would be turned into a complete imbecile), the part of the movie when Lucy thinks she sees Aslan and the subsequent return to the gorge and walking down the rock path (again, as I watched the rock path and the stream in the gorge, it was if it was taken straight out of my mind’s eye. I was enthralled).
The charm of these opening sequences is only enhanced for those who have read the book. The images are brought to life beautifully, and most of the characters leap off of the screen as supersized images of their literary counterparts. Adamson keeps the pace up and the interest high, even for those who already know the story.
At any rate, I was entirely pleased as I watched the beginning of the movie. Then, Caspian and Peter met. This was where the real problems began for me. Right away, Peter and Caspian begin trading ridiculous verbal barbs, and your dislike of Peter begins to grow and grow. Andrew Adamson, the director of the film, said that the reason he put this odd conflict between Caspian and Peter (which only grows larger and more annoying as the film progresses) is so that Peter’s character could be fleshed out more. Adamson said that Peter always seemed a bit too “stiffly heroic” in the books.
Well, that’s true. Peter is, at times, “stiffly heroic” in the books, but that is how Lewis wrote the books, and it works for Peter just fine. There was no need to introduce this particular “character development” into the film, and the film suffers for it.
Also, around this time, the observant members of the audience begin to notice a slight romantic interest between Caspian and Susan. Again, like the Peter/Caspian conflict, this is nowhere in the book, it only increases as the movie goes on and it doesn’t help move the plot or Susan’s character anywhere. It also makes for some cheesy moments in the film. At one point, when Caspian offers Susan’s horn back to her, she flirtatiously says something along the lines of “No, you might need to call me again.” As she and Lucy ride off on their mission, Lucy incredulously repeats Susan’s line as if to say “really?” That is precisely the question I was asking myself as I watched these scenes unfold.
The last thing that quite bothered me was the castle siege. Now, before I get the sarcastic remarks about how I’m one of those people who get incredibly peeved every time something is left out of or changed in a movie based on a book, I’m not one of those people. I understand that books and cinema are not the same thing. For example, there are definite issues of chronology and changed events (yes, even a GASP leaving out of Aslan in one scene) that occur in the beginning of the movie, but they are there because the movie needs to be a movie, not a book. I get it, and I think that these things can be handled well (like in Fellowship of the Ring) or poorly (like in The Two Towers).
The castle siege is not handled well. There is absolutely no reason for it to be there, and much of it is appears to be Adamson’s attempt to ape the Lord of the Rings movies. The only result is a generic battle scene shot in a way very similar to much of The Two Towers, a lame sight gag with a tied up cat and an excuse to insert more controversy into the relationship between Peter and Caspian. Also, was I the only person who was displeased with the centrality of a flashlight to the plot points of that scene?
Anyway, enough with the complaining.The duel between Peter and Miraz was most excellent. Even though you know who is going to win, it still manages to be intense and highly enjoyable. The treasonous second in command is done quite well, and the battle scene is pretty cool. The end isn’t as awe-inspiring or as magical as the beginning (partly because we’ve seen much of this before … in, again, Lord of the Rings), but it is still a solid finish. The way they handle the magical door back into the present is handled very nicely—it reminded me a little bit of the doors in Monsters Inc. Also, I highly enjoyed the “I left my lamp in Narnia” bit at the end—a nice nod to fans of the book.
On the whole, the movie was good. I wish I could give it an A. Portions of the film certainly deserve that. However, the superfluous castle siege, the bickering between Peter and Caspian and the shoehorned love story knock the film down to a B.
I saw Prince Caspian on Saturday night. It was a pretty good movie. The slightly melancholy thing is that it could have been a really good movie. However, I was expecting it to be pretty good all the way through, and instead it had an excellent beginning, a solid finish and a rotten middle. So, I can both be pleasantly surprised and a tad disappointed at the overall quality of the film.
The beginning was absolutely great. It was exciting, visually impressive and true to both the events and the spirit of the book. There were a few minor issues with Peter being kind of a jerk, but overall this part of the movie plays out beautifully. I especially liked the portrayal of Nikabrik (right out of the book and just as I pictured him), Reepicheep (who I feared would be turned into a complete imbecile), the part of the movie when Lucy thinks she sees Aslan and the subsequent return to the gorge and walking down the rock path (again, as I watched the rock path and the stream in the gorge, it was if it was taken straight out of my mind’s eye. I was enthralled).
The charm of these opening sequences is only enhanced for those who have read the book. The images are brought to life beautifully, and most of the characters leap off of the screen as supersized images of their literary counterparts. Adamson keeps the pace up and the interest high, even for those who already know the story.
At any rate, I was entirely pleased as I watched the beginning of the movie. Then, Caspian and Peter met. This was where the real problems began for me. Right away, Peter and Caspian begin trading ridiculous verbal barbs, and your dislike of Peter begins to grow and grow. Andrew Adamson, the director of the film, said that the reason he put this odd conflict between Caspian and Peter (which only grows larger and more annoying as the film progresses) is so that Peter’s character could be fleshed out more. Adamson said that Peter always seemed a bit too “stiffly heroic” in the books.
Well, that’s true. Peter is, at times, “stiffly heroic” in the books, but that is how Lewis wrote the books, and it works for Peter just fine. There was no need to introduce this particular “character development” into the film, and the film suffers for it.
Also, around this time, the observant members of the audience begin to notice a slight romantic interest between Caspian and Susan. Again, like the Peter/Caspian conflict, this is nowhere in the book, it only increases as the movie goes on and it doesn’t help move the plot or Susan’s character anywhere. It also makes for some cheesy moments in the film. At one point, when Caspian offers Susan’s horn back to her, she flirtatiously says something along the lines of “No, you might need to call me again.” As she and Lucy ride off on their mission, Lucy incredulously repeats Susan’s line as if to say “really?” That is precisely the question I was asking myself as I watched these scenes unfold.
The last thing that quite bothered me was the castle siege. Now, before I get the sarcastic remarks about how I’m one of those people who get incredibly peeved every time something is left out of or changed in a movie based on a book, I’m not one of those people. I understand that books and cinema are not the same thing. For example, there are definite issues of chronology and changed events (yes, even a GASP leaving out of Aslan in one scene) that occur in the beginning of the movie, but they are there because the movie needs to be a movie, not a book. I get it, and I think that these things can be handled well (like in Fellowship of the Ring) or poorly (like in The Two Towers).
The castle siege is not handled well. There is absolutely no reason for it to be there, and much of it is appears to be Adamson’s attempt to ape the Lord of the Rings movies. The only result is a generic battle scene shot in a way very similar to much of The Two Towers, a lame sight gag with a tied up cat and an excuse to insert more controversy into the relationship between Peter and Caspian. Also, was I the only person who was displeased with the centrality of a flashlight to the plot points of that scene?
Anyway, enough with the complaining.The duel between Peter and Miraz was most excellent. Even though you know who is going to win, it still manages to be intense and highly enjoyable. The treasonous second in command is done quite well, and the battle scene is pretty cool. The end isn’t as awe-inspiring or as magical as the beginning (partly because we’ve seen much of this before … in, again, Lord of the Rings), but it is still a solid finish. The way they handle the magical door back into the present is handled very nicely—it reminded me a little bit of the doors in Monsters Inc. Also, I highly enjoyed the “I left my lamp in Narnia” bit at the end—a nice nod to fans of the book.
On the whole, the movie was good. I wish I could give it an A. Portions of the film certainly deserve that. However, the superfluous castle siege, the bickering between Peter and Caspian and the shoehorned love story knock the film down to a B.
Backlog: Chipping away at Relient k
On October 18, Dave Douglas announced he was leaving Relient k. I'm rather sad about this.
Although Dave wasn't one of the original members, he more or less was. He's the definitive Relient k drummer. Pittman left right after Mmhmm came out. Now, instead of him, we have John Warne (who is moderately cool) and Jonathan Schneck (who isn't).
Original members: Matt Thiessen and Matt Hoopes.Granted, this has always essentially been Thiessen's band, and it will remain that way, but I'm sad that they've almost become another entity with the same name. Something will be different now.
Oh. And one more thing that I thought of while I was writing this. After Dave leaves (end of this year), Relient k will never, ever be able to play Life After Death and Taxes at its full potential ever again. And that is a sad, sad thing.
Although Dave wasn't one of the original members, he more or less was. He's the definitive Relient k drummer. Pittman left right after Mmhmm came out. Now, instead of him, we have John Warne (who is moderately cool) and Jonathan Schneck (who isn't).
Original members: Matt Thiessen and Matt Hoopes.Granted, this has always essentially been Thiessen's band, and it will remain that way, but I'm sad that they've almost become another entity with the same name. Something will be different now.
Oh. And one more thing that I thought of while I was writing this. After Dave leaves (end of this year), Relient k will never, ever be able to play Life After Death and Taxes at its full potential ever again. And that is a sad, sad thing.
Backlog: Relient k - Not just for youth groups
Relient k (along with Audio Adrenaline, Jars of Clay, the Beatles, and now possibly Ben Folds) is one of my favorite bands. And, unfortunately, I have long thought that they have had to endure the misdirected scorn from some music snobs who dislike some music simply because of the type of people who listen to it.
I can't say that I totally can blame them. If a ninth grader came to me and started raving about this cool band that she listens to in youth group, and "ohmigosh they are soooo hot!" 9 out of 10 times I'd tune them out. And yes, rk does have fans like that. However, 1 out of the 10 times (or maybe more than 10) there is some music worth listening to. Relient k is one of the 1's.
I first read about rk in some teen magazine. Later, I heard some of their music at, you guessed it, youth group, and I liked it enough to buy their second (and, at the time, latest) album, The Anatomy of the Tongue in Cheek. And yes, there IS a reason that youth groups like them, particularly their old music. Many of their songs are silly, and almost all of them are ridiculously catchy. And some of their early work (like "Breakdown," "Trademark," and much of the music from their debut) isn't really great quality. But even in the debut, some of Matt Thiessen's lyrical creativity was hinted at, and Relient k continued to improve album after album.
Then they made Mmhmm, their fourth album. Musically, it rocked at precisely the right moments to rock and it slowed down and coasted at the precise moments it needed to coast. Thiessen's voice shined, and the songs melded together to form a coherent whole, while all sounding distinct from each other. Lyrically, Thiessen has (so far) never been better, writing clever and poignant lines to reveal a deeply personal and relatable album.
After Mmhmm, they followed it up with an EP and, this February, they released Five Score and Seven Years Ago. While lyrically not as strong as Mmhmm, it did have several strong points, and while they do not sound as comfortable as they did in Mmhmm, they have produced their most musically diverse album yet. Starting with an accapella Beach Boys tribute and ending with an 11 minute, 115 track song to cap the album off, the result is an album that, while not as golden as Mmhmm, is still satisfying.
Why then, does rk still suffer the youth band stigma? Well, part of it is that youth groups still love them. Even though their lyrics are much more meaningful than almost every other pop, punk, or pop/punk band, Relient k still often plays in a pop/punk style. And while they are now popular in the mainstream, they were popular enough before Mmhmm came out that they still need to throw some "Christian era" hits at the most devoted fans (I've seen them five times. I've heard "Sadie Hawkins Dance" and "Chapped Stick, Chapped Lips, and Things Like Chemistry" all five times.)
The other reason that I think that Relient k is still shunned by many music snobs is because, once upon a time, the snobs heard one or two songs by Relient k and hated them and have since hated the band for all eternity. I wonder if the amount of people turned off to the band because of "Sadie Hawkins" is proportional to the amount turned on to them by the same song. I wouldn't be surprised.And, here's where I'll lose some of you: I like "Sadie Hawkins Dance" and "17 Magazine" and "Nancy Drew" and "Maybe It's Maybelline." They are fun, and many of them are witty in their own way. Not everything about "youth group" is bad y'know. You probably enjoyed it while you were there.
That wraps up the main bulk of what I wanted to write. But I'll leave you with ten songs of Relient k that you should listen to before you blow them off. Do with it what you will.
10. Hello McFly--self titled. This is the best song from Relient k's debut, back when their music was littered with old pop culture references. The lyrics aren't amazing or anything, but they are fun and clever.
9. For the Moments I Feel Faint--Anatomy of Tongue in Cheek. Worshipful song with evocative acoustic guitar, violins, and good vocals by lead singer Thiessen.
8. My Way or the Highway--Anatomy of Tongue in Cheek. Maybe I'm the only one who likes this song, but I like it, perhaps simply for the fact that the end is cool and the beginning contains the line "Add a cello here to add a sad impression".
7. Jefferson Aeroplane--Two Lefts Don't Make a Right, but Three Do. Still not really sure what this song is about, but it sounds great. If you can find it, listen to the demo on The Creepy EP. It's even better when done with an acoustic guitar.
6. Plead the Fifth--Five Score and Seven Years Ago. A short little song about the Lincoln assassination, done completely in accapella. Thiessen's favorite band is the Beach Boys, and you can tell here as they use their voices as the instruments.
5. I Am Understood?--Two Lefts Don't Make a Right, but Three Do. I've always thought that the lyrics to this song are beautiful. There's a small bit of poorly executed screamo at the end of the song, but other than that it is a wonderfully written song to a God who comprehends us all and still loves us anyway.
4. I So Hate Consequences--Mmhmm. Yeah, silly title, but a passionate, rocked out song about running from God.
3. Apathetic Way to Be--The Apathetic EP. Every single time I listen to this song, I like it more. This song really is Relient k's wittiest song ever, making fun both of people who care about nothing and people who care about everything.
2. Life After Death and Taxes--Mmhmm. RK's best concert song, with some of my favorite lines of any of their music. "This is how I choose to live, as if I'm jumping off a cliff, Knowing that you'll save me."
1. Deathbed--Five Score and Seven Years Ago. This is that huuuuge song that I referenced earlier on. This song is a powerful story of redemption, and, coincidentally, has John Foreman guest singing what are his most (only?) spiritual lines since before The Beautiful Letdown.
I can't say that I totally can blame them. If a ninth grader came to me and started raving about this cool band that she listens to in youth group, and "ohmigosh they are soooo hot!" 9 out of 10 times I'd tune them out. And yes, rk does have fans like that. However, 1 out of the 10 times (or maybe more than 10) there is some music worth listening to. Relient k is one of the 1's.
I first read about rk in some teen magazine. Later, I heard some of their music at, you guessed it, youth group, and I liked it enough to buy their second (and, at the time, latest) album, The Anatomy of the Tongue in Cheek. And yes, there IS a reason that youth groups like them, particularly their old music. Many of their songs are silly, and almost all of them are ridiculously catchy. And some of their early work (like "Breakdown," "Trademark," and much of the music from their debut) isn't really great quality. But even in the debut, some of Matt Thiessen's lyrical creativity was hinted at, and Relient k continued to improve album after album.
Then they made Mmhmm, their fourth album. Musically, it rocked at precisely the right moments to rock and it slowed down and coasted at the precise moments it needed to coast. Thiessen's voice shined, and the songs melded together to form a coherent whole, while all sounding distinct from each other. Lyrically, Thiessen has (so far) never been better, writing clever and poignant lines to reveal a deeply personal and relatable album.
After Mmhmm, they followed it up with an EP and, this February, they released Five Score and Seven Years Ago. While lyrically not as strong as Mmhmm, it did have several strong points, and while they do not sound as comfortable as they did in Mmhmm, they have produced their most musically diverse album yet. Starting with an accapella Beach Boys tribute and ending with an 11 minute, 115 track song to cap the album off, the result is an album that, while not as golden as Mmhmm, is still satisfying.
Why then, does rk still suffer the youth band stigma? Well, part of it is that youth groups still love them. Even though their lyrics are much more meaningful than almost every other pop, punk, or pop/punk band, Relient k still often plays in a pop/punk style. And while they are now popular in the mainstream, they were popular enough before Mmhmm came out that they still need to throw some "Christian era" hits at the most devoted fans (I've seen them five times. I've heard "Sadie Hawkins Dance" and "Chapped Stick, Chapped Lips, and Things Like Chemistry" all five times.)
The other reason that I think that Relient k is still shunned by many music snobs is because, once upon a time, the snobs heard one or two songs by Relient k and hated them and have since hated the band for all eternity. I wonder if the amount of people turned off to the band because of "Sadie Hawkins" is proportional to the amount turned on to them by the same song. I wouldn't be surprised.And, here's where I'll lose some of you: I like "Sadie Hawkins Dance" and "17 Magazine" and "Nancy Drew" and "Maybe It's Maybelline." They are fun, and many of them are witty in their own way. Not everything about "youth group" is bad y'know. You probably enjoyed it while you were there.
That wraps up the main bulk of what I wanted to write. But I'll leave you with ten songs of Relient k that you should listen to before you blow them off. Do with it what you will.
10. Hello McFly--self titled. This is the best song from Relient k's debut, back when their music was littered with old pop culture references. The lyrics aren't amazing or anything, but they are fun and clever.
9. For the Moments I Feel Faint--Anatomy of Tongue in Cheek. Worshipful song with evocative acoustic guitar, violins, and good vocals by lead singer Thiessen.
8. My Way or the Highway--Anatomy of Tongue in Cheek. Maybe I'm the only one who likes this song, but I like it, perhaps simply for the fact that the end is cool and the beginning contains the line "Add a cello here to add a sad impression".
7. Jefferson Aeroplane--Two Lefts Don't Make a Right, but Three Do. Still not really sure what this song is about, but it sounds great. If you can find it, listen to the demo on The Creepy EP. It's even better when done with an acoustic guitar.
6. Plead the Fifth--Five Score and Seven Years Ago. A short little song about the Lincoln assassination, done completely in accapella. Thiessen's favorite band is the Beach Boys, and you can tell here as they use their voices as the instruments.
5. I Am Understood?--Two Lefts Don't Make a Right, but Three Do. I've always thought that the lyrics to this song are beautiful. There's a small bit of poorly executed screamo at the end of the song, but other than that it is a wonderfully written song to a God who comprehends us all and still loves us anyway.
4. I So Hate Consequences--Mmhmm. Yeah, silly title, but a passionate, rocked out song about running from God.
3. Apathetic Way to Be--The Apathetic EP. Every single time I listen to this song, I like it more. This song really is Relient k's wittiest song ever, making fun both of people who care about nothing and people who care about everything.
2. Life After Death and Taxes--Mmhmm. RK's best concert song, with some of my favorite lines of any of their music. "This is how I choose to live, as if I'm jumping off a cliff, Knowing that you'll save me."
1. Deathbed--Five Score and Seven Years Ago. This is that huuuuge song that I referenced earlier on. This song is a powerful story of redemption, and, coincidentally, has John Foreman guest singing what are his most (only?) spiritual lines since before The Beautiful Letdown.
Backlog: Ender's Game as a movie
I've been reading the Ender's Game saga lately (not the Shadow books, and I haven't read Children of the Mind yet) and while I was reading through Xenocide I recalled that I had read about people trying to turn the first book into a movie (Maybe I will be tongue lashed for saying this, but I actually liked Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide much better than the original). I checked into it, and there is work being done on the movie, with Card writing the screenplay.
What do you think of the books in general? Which is your favorite? What do you think about turning the book(s) into a movie?
I'll give my answer to the last question now.
After reading Ender's Game, I think it would be nearly impossible to turn it into a good movie, particularly a live action movie, that remained true to the spirit and the general form of the book. Why? Several reasons.
Number one is a doozie, and it's always the thing that Hollywood considers first: marketability. If you make the movie as close to the book as possible, you lose almost all of your audience, besides the people who have actually read the book. Think about it. The book takes place over many years in the battle station, much of the action occurs in two odd computer games and Valentine and Peter have their whole Locke/Demosthenes thing going on. These things are not easily translated into film, and many would find them slow. In fact, Card has stated in an interview that the Valentine/Peter subplot is being removed.
The film is also unmarketable in the sense that those who have not read the book will not want to go see a movie starring exclusively children, while most children will not go see a movie that is rated R for nudity, disturbing images and gore. Which, if the book is brought directly as it is to the screen, is what the rating will be.
The second reason that it would be hard to make into a good movie is CGI. For this movie to even appear believable in live action form, you would need an obscene amount of money to get the scenes in the battle room to look just right. Yeah, I know that people do amazing things with CGI nowadays, but even I admit that some scenes in the Star Wars prequels still look mildly fake (well, really only one scene--the battle on Mustafar). And those actors were standing up. Floating people about in bulky suits in front of a green screen while maintaining realism will be a daunting task.
The third reason that this movie will be so hard to make well is the child actors. I can see finding one or two or three child actors that will work in their roles in one movie, but this movie requires several more than that. It is so incredibly hard to find really good child actors, and this movie absolutely won't work without them.
What do you think of the books in general? Which is your favorite? What do you think about turning the book(s) into a movie?
I'll give my answer to the last question now.
After reading Ender's Game, I think it would be nearly impossible to turn it into a good movie, particularly a live action movie, that remained true to the spirit and the general form of the book. Why? Several reasons.
Number one is a doozie, and it's always the thing that Hollywood considers first: marketability. If you make the movie as close to the book as possible, you lose almost all of your audience, besides the people who have actually read the book. Think about it. The book takes place over many years in the battle station, much of the action occurs in two odd computer games and Valentine and Peter have their whole Locke/Demosthenes thing going on. These things are not easily translated into film, and many would find them slow. In fact, Card has stated in an interview that the Valentine/Peter subplot is being removed.
The film is also unmarketable in the sense that those who have not read the book will not want to go see a movie starring exclusively children, while most children will not go see a movie that is rated R for nudity, disturbing images and gore. Which, if the book is brought directly as it is to the screen, is what the rating will be.
The second reason that it would be hard to make into a good movie is CGI. For this movie to even appear believable in live action form, you would need an obscene amount of money to get the scenes in the battle room to look just right. Yeah, I know that people do amazing things with CGI nowadays, but even I admit that some scenes in the Star Wars prequels still look mildly fake (well, really only one scene--the battle on Mustafar). And those actors were standing up. Floating people about in bulky suits in front of a green screen while maintaining realism will be a daunting task.
The third reason that this movie will be so hard to make well is the child actors. I can see finding one or two or three child actors that will work in their roles in one movie, but this movie requires several more than that. It is so incredibly hard to find really good child actors, and this movie absolutely won't work without them.
Backlog: Pirates 3
(Updating note: This is an old review. Upon further viewing, I would change my assessment from "pretty good" to "mediocre, except the cool parts that have Barbossa in them")
Looking through rottentomatoes.com, other movie reviewing sources, and many of my friends, you'd think that there could only be two ways of thinking about Pirates 3. You could either love it, like a few of the reviewers and most of the people I saw the movie with, or you could hate it, like most of the reviewers, Jaron, my "serious" movie friends, and my mom whenever she gets around to watching it.
I neither loved nor loathed it. I thought it was pretty good.
Yes, it was the most confusing movie I have ever seen. Yes, it was rather bloated and/or convoluted at some points. Yes, some of the jokes fell flat. And yes, the first movie is on a whole different plane than the other two. But I still thought it was pretty good.
Well, with all those negatives, what did I like about the movie? Well, there were a few things.
First, the movie wasn’t Dead Man’s Chest. While DMC had some enjoyable moments and plenty of Jack, it seemed that the people responsible for the movie had decided that not only were jokes repeated almost verbatim from the last movie uproariously funny if included in the new offering, but the word “rum” was the single funniest thing ever to grace the green earth. This line of thought resulted in DMC being an attempt to recreate the first Pirates flick, only darker, longer and bigger. It also managed to be not nearly as clever, funny, or coherent, and it used the word “rum” about 40 times more than necessary.
At World’s End doesn’t do those things. It attempts to be its own movie, even though being its own movie still isn’t as entertaining as the first movie was. And yes, instead of the word “rum,” the writers decided that multiple Jacks were really, really funny. I disagree with that decision, although multiple Jacks certainly are better than an overuse of the word “rum.” In fact, I can only remember three rum jokes, two of which were original, and one that actually made me smile. This movie sought to be different from the first movie, and also go beyond the unresolved arbitrariness of the second movie. It succeeded on both of these points.
The second thing I liked about the movie was that it resolved. Going into the movie, I thought that much of the movie would remain unresolved or insufficiently explained. DMC introduced such a mammoth plot, one that would seem better served with two more movies instead of one. However, with an exception or two (why is the Kraken dead? I don’t get it), the plot was wrapped up, and usually in a pretty satisfying way. Granted, it all kind of falls together at the last minute, but sometimes that works, and I thought it did here.
The third thing I liked about the movie was Barbossa. Geoffrey Rush holds this movie together. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if he and Kiera Knightley got more screen time than Johnny Depp. Whenever the movie needs him, Barbossa is there to say “Argh!” or shout some delightfully overwrought or dramatic line with appropriate gusto. Out of the four main characters, Will is the only one who didn’t get his own movie. COTBP, for all of Depp’s antics (which, don’t get me wrong, are the best part of that movie), was about Elizabeth’s adventures with these strange piratey people. After the surprise success of the first movie, someone decided to make a movie centered around Jack trying to stick around this world when his time had run out. One of DMC’s taglines was “Captain Jack is back.” This movie is about Barbossa, and his quest to keep doing what he loves to do now that he’s not dead anymore. Even though I dislike bringing characters back to life, seeing Barbossa in this film reminded me of how missed he was in the second one. The scene where he marries Will and Elizabeth while fighting off about five of Jones’s henchmen was particularly good.
Finally, the fourth thing I liked about it was the special effects. Yes, I know, effects don’t make a movie, but when they are put to good use they certainly help (and they look spectacular). The effects here are much better than DMC. During DMC, about halfway through the movie, the effects (particularly of Davy Jones and crew) got to be incredibly cartoony. Here the henchmen and Jones are animated much better and are more entertaining to watch. One of the best scenes in the movie is when Jones starts crying and realizes his heart is on board. All in all, he was a much better character in this movie than the last (although I got really tired of him saying “Do you feel dead?” over and over). The effects help that. However, obviously, the best use of effects is in the maelstrom battle. That was really, REALLY cool.
Now, with all this praise, it almost sounds as if I thought it was a great movie. I don’t. It’s highly entertaining in parts, and all of those things I mentioned are there, but it is definitely a flawed movie. I got tired of Elizabeth around halfway through the last movie, and she became more tiresome here. Orlando Bloom, who actually was quite good in DMC, returned to his usual bad-acting form. Depp wasn’t as funny in this one, and the things I mentioned at the beginning were definitely there. But I still liked it.
So, it’s not a great movie. It’s not a ghastly movie. It’s a pretty good movie.
Looking through rottentomatoes.com, other movie reviewing sources, and many of my friends, you'd think that there could only be two ways of thinking about Pirates 3. You could either love it, like a few of the reviewers and most of the people I saw the movie with, or you could hate it, like most of the reviewers, Jaron, my "serious" movie friends, and my mom whenever she gets around to watching it.
I neither loved nor loathed it. I thought it was pretty good.
Yes, it was the most confusing movie I have ever seen. Yes, it was rather bloated and/or convoluted at some points. Yes, some of the jokes fell flat. And yes, the first movie is on a whole different plane than the other two. But I still thought it was pretty good.
Well, with all those negatives, what did I like about the movie? Well, there were a few things.
First, the movie wasn’t Dead Man’s Chest. While DMC had some enjoyable moments and plenty of Jack, it seemed that the people responsible for the movie had decided that not only were jokes repeated almost verbatim from the last movie uproariously funny if included in the new offering, but the word “rum” was the single funniest thing ever to grace the green earth. This line of thought resulted in DMC being an attempt to recreate the first Pirates flick, only darker, longer and bigger. It also managed to be not nearly as clever, funny, or coherent, and it used the word “rum” about 40 times more than necessary.
At World’s End doesn’t do those things. It attempts to be its own movie, even though being its own movie still isn’t as entertaining as the first movie was. And yes, instead of the word “rum,” the writers decided that multiple Jacks were really, really funny. I disagree with that decision, although multiple Jacks certainly are better than an overuse of the word “rum.” In fact, I can only remember three rum jokes, two of which were original, and one that actually made me smile. This movie sought to be different from the first movie, and also go beyond the unresolved arbitrariness of the second movie. It succeeded on both of these points.
The second thing I liked about the movie was that it resolved. Going into the movie, I thought that much of the movie would remain unresolved or insufficiently explained. DMC introduced such a mammoth plot, one that would seem better served with two more movies instead of one. However, with an exception or two (why is the Kraken dead? I don’t get it), the plot was wrapped up, and usually in a pretty satisfying way. Granted, it all kind of falls together at the last minute, but sometimes that works, and I thought it did here.
The third thing I liked about the movie was Barbossa. Geoffrey Rush holds this movie together. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if he and Kiera Knightley got more screen time than Johnny Depp. Whenever the movie needs him, Barbossa is there to say “Argh!” or shout some delightfully overwrought or dramatic line with appropriate gusto. Out of the four main characters, Will is the only one who didn’t get his own movie. COTBP, for all of Depp’s antics (which, don’t get me wrong, are the best part of that movie), was about Elizabeth’s adventures with these strange piratey people. After the surprise success of the first movie, someone decided to make a movie centered around Jack trying to stick around this world when his time had run out. One of DMC’s taglines was “Captain Jack is back.” This movie is about Barbossa, and his quest to keep doing what he loves to do now that he’s not dead anymore. Even though I dislike bringing characters back to life, seeing Barbossa in this film reminded me of how missed he was in the second one. The scene where he marries Will and Elizabeth while fighting off about five of Jones’s henchmen was particularly good.
Finally, the fourth thing I liked about it was the special effects. Yes, I know, effects don’t make a movie, but when they are put to good use they certainly help (and they look spectacular). The effects here are much better than DMC. During DMC, about halfway through the movie, the effects (particularly of Davy Jones and crew) got to be incredibly cartoony. Here the henchmen and Jones are animated much better and are more entertaining to watch. One of the best scenes in the movie is when Jones starts crying and realizes his heart is on board. All in all, he was a much better character in this movie than the last (although I got really tired of him saying “Do you feel dead?” over and over). The effects help that. However, obviously, the best use of effects is in the maelstrom battle. That was really, REALLY cool.
Now, with all this praise, it almost sounds as if I thought it was a great movie. I don’t. It’s highly entertaining in parts, and all of those things I mentioned are there, but it is definitely a flawed movie. I got tired of Elizabeth around halfway through the last movie, and she became more tiresome here. Orlando Bloom, who actually was quite good in DMC, returned to his usual bad-acting form. Depp wasn’t as funny in this one, and the things I mentioned at the beginning were definitely there. But I still liked it.
So, it’s not a great movie. It’s not a ghastly movie. It’s a pretty good movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
