The Mummy

"She will not stop, until she has remade this world in her image."

It is always risky to state your intentions to make an enormous shared universe franchise before you have even released your latest movie. It is a literal case of not getting too far ahead of yourself, but studios seem intent on doing it time and time again. A prime example would be Sony who had ambitious plans for a whole franchise but burned it to the ground with ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’, co-written and produced by one Alex Kurtzman. What is Kurtzman doing now you may ask? Well he’s writing and directing Universal’s ‘The Mummy’.

Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), a betrayed Egyptian princess who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.

So as I was saying, Alex Kurtzman has already laid the founding of one franchise that never happened. But unlike Sony, Universal seem even more confident and sure of their future in this territory. When I saw ‘The Mummy’ the classic Universal logo lead straight into their ambitiously titled ‘Dark Universe’ title card. I must admit while I did not have any interest in a Mummy remake, I was happy to see a Tom Cruise action movie that the trailers suggested ‘The Mummy’ would be. However, this brings me back to Kurtzman who seems to have made the exact same mistakes here as he did with ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’.

Not only does ‘The Mummy’ feel like a movie that panders towards sequel baiting in the worst possible way, but before it even gets to the point of franchise building it simply wasn’t that interesting to begin with anyway. It succumbs to the generic supernatural tropes that have made the genre loose favour with popular audiences while also lacking any sense of fun or charm that might have made it more enjoyable. Apolgies in advance if I use the words “generic” or “vague” throughout this review because there really is no better way to describe every aspect of ‘The Mummy’.

Even the characters fit into that description perfectly from their motivations to their personality and even their basic function. Having sat through the whole movie I still don’t actually know what Tom Cruise’s job is. Was he a soldier, treasure hunter, fugitive, archaeologist? His understanding of ancient Egypt wildly fluctuates from apparently being able to instantly recognise the era of a lost tomb he’s just stumbled into to not knowing what Hieroglyphs are. It’s frankly baffling. But not nearly as baffling as the titular Mummy’s vaguely defined supernatural powers. I can’t stress how frustrating it is when you have an antagonist whose strengths and weaknesses go completely undefined for the entire length of the movie.

All of this is a shame because Cruise and Boutella are two engaging screen presence, particularly Boutella whose physical performance feels like it belongs in a much better movie. But in a movie with such a flat and uninteresting protagonist, coupled with an antagonist completely lacking in a clear motivation or defined stakes, neither of them can redeem this. The rest of the cast are fine, but once again none of the characters are engaging enough to make me feel invested in the scenario of this movie, much less a whole franchise load of sequels and crossovers.

Speaking of which, what drags the movie down even further is that halfway through it is no longer a Mummy movie. It suddenly turns into Chapter 1 of this ‘Dark Universe’ and now we’re left to deal with one expositional scene after another that attempts to flesh out this universe only for the conclusion to suddenly remember that the first movie is still going on so we’d better have some rushed action scene. Worse still, nothing makes any of it stand out at all. There’s no flashy dialogue, smart direction or engaging moments. It just all blends together into an endless cycle of nothingness that reminded me of two things. Firstly, I was reminded of how the MCU’s first movie set the groundwork for a whole universe via a few Easter Eggs and one Samuel L Jackson cameo which seems like an even more remarkable feat in light of this. Secondly, I un-ironically miss Brendan Frasier.  

Pandering to sequels that may never happen, uninterested in its own mythology and too generic to be even remotely interesting.

Result: 3/10

Long Strange Trip

"It's not up to us to define The Grateful Dead. This living, breathing thing. that's one of the parts of its magic."

I’m not going to pretend that I’m a devout fan The Grateful Dead, which is not to say I don’t listen to and enjoy some of their music but that’s more do to with the fact that I’m a fan of that era of music in general rather than a specific devotion to that band. I certainly don’t feel a personal love for them in the same way I do for the likes of Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin even though Grateful Dead’s cultural impact and craftsmanship probably puts them on par both. Therefore I was a little intimidated by a four hour documentary about the band.

Emerging from the Bay Area's vibrant 1960s counterculture, the Grateful Dead were a motley crew whose unique sound sprang from an eclectic blend of influences: bluegrass, folk ballads, R&B, free-form jazz, classical and jug band. It was a chaotic and unforgettable era not just for the band but for music in general, and this documentary chronicles that entire long, strange trip.

As I said before, I was watching this cdoucmentary more out of an interest in that general era of rock music rather than The Grateful Dead specifically. That being said I don’t think it’s humanly possible to watch ‘Long Strange Trip’ and not leave with a newfound respect and admiration for the band and its work. While the first half an hour did not seem overtly enthralling to me I’m glad I persisted because once the documentary gets up to steam it takes the viewer on a detailed journey of what made the band so special, and why their legacy endures to this day.

That’s not to say that first half an hour is bad by any means. It’s a well put together, if not somewhat standard, account of how the band formed and broke out onto the circuit. It’s polished and by the numbers but I’m sure any huge fans of the band would appreciate the dive into their origins. After that point though, the movie becomes a masterclass of documented storytelling. The narrative takes us on this incredible journey that links one emotional set piece to another, stressing their personal importance but also placing them within the context of the larger cultural circle the band was part of.

The movie features numerous interviews from the remaining members of the band, some of their biggest fans and music scholars. They all feel infused with such passion that you can feel the adoration they have for the band just from their words alone. The way they are edited into the main narrative means that their emotional resonance is never lost. But what is even more impressive is the sheer amount of footage to be found. Both the still photos and filmed footage is presented brilliantly, being restored to a cinematic quality that fully captures the acid coloured vibes of the era in which they were filmed. The sound design is also exceptional in the way it mixes the band’s music, interviews and the original archive sound in an overlapping cacophony.

But it’s more than just technical prowess that make this an excellent movie. Its structure defies the convention of most music documentaries, telling its story in a series of vignettes rather than a chronological recounting of events. Director Amir Bar-Lev chooses to separate the movie into six acts that each play out like a miniature movie in itself. While this can feel episodes at times there is always the through line of the band itself that makes it feel like a unified whole. The movie never forgets where its focus is and is all the better for it.  The fact that the movie is aiming to capture the spirit of the band rather than its definitive history is clear as large chunks of the band’s evolution are left out. But it never feels like a page was missing due to the way the movie focusses on specific details while capturing the broader scope of how the band felt.

Unlike many music documentaries that feel less involving as they reach their conclusion, ‘Long Strange Trip’ only grows more involving as it ploughs on. From the onset of their mass fan base that resulted in tidal waves of humans trying to gain access to the band’s concerts to the way their fame began to worry the band itself concerning the power they wielded. Mind you, when I say band, specifically I mean Jerry Garcia who is certainly the protagonist of the film. The other many members of Grateful Dead play more of a supporting role as the movie focusses not only on Garcia’s original vision for the band but also his trials and tribulations in dealing with the legacy he was forging. His triumphant return to the stage 1987 following a string of health problems has the same kind of cathartic impact you would find in any fictional feature. Then his final stage tours in the 1990s, which see Garcia as a world weary artist are almost operatic in their emotional resonance. It may be a rock epic but ‘Long Strange Trip’ works just as well as a character study.

Like the music of its subject, ‘Long Strange Trip’ is epic, sprawling and complex, but also endlessly enthralling and impossible to turn away from.

Result: 9/10

Wonder Woman

"Be careful of mankind Diana. They do not deserve you."

So to say ‘Wonder Woman’ has some pressure on it is somewhat of an understatement. Not only is it expected to live up to the expectations of being the first major female led superhero blockbuster in over a decade, then you take into account that in the 75 year history of the character this is her first solo outing. It also has to get a franchise back on the right tracks after what has so far felt like watching a slow motion car crash that you’re powerless to stop. It has to hit everything correctly, working on its own but also suggesting that there could be hope for the broader future.   

Before she was Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an unconquerable warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise until an American pilot (Chris Pine) washes ashore and tells her about the massive conflict that's raging in the outside world. Convinced that she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her home for the first time. Fighting alongside men in a war to end all wars, she finally discovers her full powers and true destiny.

I couldn’t help but be sceptical of ‘Wonder Woman’. Even when one ignores the track record of the DCEU nothing about Wonder Woman’s role in ‘Batman v Superman’ had me excited for a solo outing. Then there’s how unproven Gadot is as an actress, and even if Patty Jenkins did manage to make a good movie Warner Brothers might just do to her what they did to David Ayer’s ‘Suicide Squad’ and ruin the whole thing in the process. However, turns out I was completely wrong and I’m so happy about it.

‘Wonder Woman’ is a terrific superhero movie that’s made to feel all the more meaningful by what a cultural touchstone it is. Granted we have seen female led superhero movies before but never of this size and never of this quality. It’s a rousing spectacle that evokes awe and inspiration when it needs to but never fails to deliver on being a story about one character’s journey to discover herself. I think a lot of this has to do with the tonal consistency of it. So far the DCEU has struggled to balance its tone so that any attempt at comedy falls horribly flat, and we’re reminded of how depressingly bleak and unrelenting the rest of the movie is. ‘Wonder Woman’ is different, it knows how to maintain a consistent tone and feel that means the director can convey many different emotions while balancing the film as a unified whole. The humour feels organic to the situation, as does the action, drama and any other conflicting mood.

The fact that the film’s humorous moments work is somewhat amazing given its setting. It does a superb job of conveying its thesis about the horrors of war while also adding a broader sense of appeal. If anything, those moments of bleakness only make the more rousing feats of heroism all the more impactful. To see the colourful and hopeful Wonder Woman soar amongst this backdrop of violent desolation is a brilliant contrast. It’s little wonder that many have compared this to Richard Donner’s ‘Superman’ because it really does have the same mythic and timelessly heroic quality that Christopher Reeve’s man of steel did.

Speaking of colour, the whole movie radiates with it. Of course that’s not to say they crammed neon colours into the frame but the way the cinematography illuminates the movie makes it visually spectacular. There is a great sense of depth to each set piece and I’m sure that is due to Patty Jenkins having a great understanding of narrative framing and visual storytelling. Each shot complements the characters, informs the audience of what they are witnessing and further conveys a mood to them. Though she employs slow motion, tacking shots and fast edits they usually feel motivated rather than just a gimmick to light up an otherwise dull scene. Nearly all of them fit the tone of the movie and enhance what it is trying to say.

As far as Jenkins’ direction goes, I can only fault her for a few edits that lacked a little cohesion and some dodgy green screen shots in the first act. In fact the first act as a whole drags a little but that could be a testament to how well Jenkins establishes Diana’s character and environment that I want to further expand the movies universe within fifteen minutes. Though the rest of the narrative is hardly ground breaking (and overtly familiar with another shield wielding superhero origin…) the execution is superb, firmly establishing our heroes, villains and story. Also if you’re as dumb as I am said narrative might supply one or two surprises for you.

As I said earlier Gal Gadot did not instil confidence in me, but surprisingly she is excellent in the lead role. Whether it’s the fact that she happens to perfectly embody this particular character or the fact that she’s under the direction of the woman who crafted Charlize Theron’s performance in ‘Monster’, Gadot soars here. She begins with this nativity and determination that makes Diana an instantly empathetic character, but as the movie progresses you can see her clear development as a character that never seems to falter, even in the more dramatic scenes. She’s also backed up by a great supporting cast in the form of Chris Pine, Robin Wright, David Thewlis and Ewan Bremmer.

As I said before, ‘Wonder Woman’ may not be a game changer in terms of its genre, but by executing it so brilliant Patty Jenkins has crafted a film of timeless heroism. It’s not difficult to imagine young girls across the world looking up to this hero and that’s worth being admired, but to be honest ‘Wonder Woman’ is excellent enough for anyone to look up to the character. It really is that good.

A soaring triumph that balances action, drama, humour and feats of great heroism in a terrific superhero blockbuster for all.

Result: 8/10

Best and Worst of May 2017

Despite a relatively strong start to the year, May of 2017 was a fairly lacklustre month. While there was still enough good movies to fill in the usual three spots, there was plenty of mediocre misfires that feels frighteningly reminiscent of the summer of last year. Hopefully things can improve in the coming months because I don’t think I can go through another summer that is so bad that ‘The Shallows’ is widely regarded as one of the better films of the season.

That being said while the blockbusters were somewhat disappointing the indie scene was as interesting as ever. For every movie I was anticipating that ultimately failed to live up to expectations I was also treated to a brilliant smaller movie that caught me by surprise. While I wouldn’t regard the best efforts of this month as perfect or ref8ned visions, they are brilliantly unique ones.

3: Colossal

While Nacho Vigalondo’s movie might not be a perfectly constructed piece of cinema, its concept alone is bold and unique enough to be marvelled at. But by adding a terrific blend of humour and drama supporting what is ultimately a character study of a damaged person, played brilliantly by Anne Hathaway. Hathaway continues to establish herself as a brilliantly talented actor whom is capable of tackling roles far larger than her roots in ‘The Princess Diaries’ would suggest (which is only fair, I mean I doubt anyone looked at the child star of ‘Jeepers Creepers 2’ and went “There’s Martin Scorsese’s next acting protégé). It plays ingeniously with its own genre, both subverting it while also adhering to what makes it unique and though it can be disorienting it’s highly interesting to watch.

2: I Am Heath Ledger

Any documentary to Heath Ledger could easily fall into the trap of analysing the movie star as opposed to the artist. But this excellent documentary showcases Ledger from the perspective of his friends and family, intercut with the actors own home videos that inject such an air of personal affection to the movie that it is difficult to not be instantly drawn in by it. The documentary sheds light on just how committed Ledger was to his craft, his ability to take risks within his career and further push his abilities as an actor. It may not address the elephant in the room but then again why should it? It sought to celebrate his life and work in the most intimate way it could.

1: Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2

I wanted to recommend something other than the massive blockbuster everyone has already seen, but I can’t be dishonest to myself and say anything other than James Gunn’s intergalactic sequel was the best movie I saw this month. The entertainment factor alone is phenomenal, blending such a brilliant amalgamation of action and comedy that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other (say what you will but no other movie here opened with a tiny sentient tree dancing to Electric Light Orchestra’s ‘Mr Blue Sky) and as far as I’m concerened that’s their loss). But what is even better is how Gunn uses the framework of the sequel to further develop and analyse his characters, making them more empathetic and complex in the process. Given that the all-star cast have no trouble bringing said characters to life it’s not difficult to name this the best movie of the month.

And the worst…

The Circle

Though I would not exactly say I was highly anticipating this techno thriller, but with a talented cast and director I was certainly intrigued. However, despite directing the excellent ‘The Spectacular Now’ James Ponsoldt seems to have lost his skill at intimate crafted movies. Not only is ‘The Circle’ mind numbingly repetitive in what it is trying to preach, but it’s a message we’ve all heard before and nothing here makes it even remotely refreshing. The movie just seems so utterly flat and uninspired, with hardly a single aspect from the characters to the plot or direction, nothing sticks out even slightly. One could almost say the film just goes….round in circles. I’ll show myself out.

I Am Heath Ledger

"He was the most alive human, and if it wasn't on the edge it didn't interest him."

The passing of Heath Ledger was probably one of the greatest losses to the craft of acting in recent years. The sheer potential Ledger has just tapped into with his awe-inspiring performance in ‘The Dark Knight’ was astonishing, coming off the back of other impressive turns in ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and ‘I’m Not There’. Instead of decade upon decade of terrific performances we and everyone that knew him were robbed of his remarkable talent as well as him as a person. Close to a decade after that we get ‘I Am Heath Ledger’ as a celebration of his life work.

With contributions from Naomi Watts, Ben Medelsohn and Ang Lee, this documentary takes an intimate look back upon the art and life of actor Heath Ledger.

A good question to ask for documentaries, especially ones of this nature, is “would this be better as a narrative feature?” If the answer is “no” then it’s a good sign that the movie is an affecting piece of cinema and that is the case for ‘I Am Heath Ledger’. This documentary weaves in home videos of Ledger as well as media reports and modern interviews that inject such an intimate and personal sense of meaning to proceedings. It allows us to get an up-close look at the actor and experience the affection and personality others are describing. It’s hardly a revolutionary technique and one that has been executed better elsewhere but it serves the narrative here very well. If you want to see it done to perfection then check out both of Asif Kapadia’s recent documentaries ‘Senna’ and ‘Amy’.

Actually, speaking of those two particular documentaries I do have to remark upon a flaw with ‘I Am Heath Ledger’ in that regard. I find that the best documentaries dissect their subject rather than just celebrate them, and while Ledger himself is certainly worthy of being celebrated one has to ask if the documentary should have tried harder to uncover more about him and dig beneath the surface. It’s not an approach I object to but it’s one that has its limitations. I already knew what this film had to tell me about its subject whereas those I mentioned earlier by Kapadia added a whole new dimension to their subjects.

That being said, I try to judge a film on what it is, not what I think it should be and as a celebration of Ledger’s life and work this documentary excels. The sheer amount of people praising him is meaningful enough, but to see the interviews in full where we can feel the genuine empathy and meaningfulness to what each guest is saying makes it all the more impactful. They range from reminiscent to somewhat mournful as one does when remembering a departed friend/loved one, though I must say there are some notable absentees. Could they not at the very least pull some archive footage of Christopher Nolan or Terry Gilliam discussing Ledger given that they each directed his final two performances?

In fairness though the movie never claims to be a subjective view of its subject. That is obvious both from the way it handles the interviews about Ledger as well as the fact that it foregoes any formal interview of the actor during his lifetime in favour of recovered home videos. It further adds to the personal feel the documentary possesses. It’s heartfelt, tender and to someone like me who continues to admire Ledger’s work as an actor, doesn’t take long to resonate on an emotional level. We also get insight from professionals within the industry who further emphasise the remarkable nature of the actor’s career. As Mendelsohn remarks at one point, Ledger had established himself as a movie heartthrob only to turn around and star in a prestige picture about gay cowboys, in 2005. Granted it does not seem an age ago but ‘Brokeback Mountain’ remains a bigger touchstone and risk taker than many people give it credit for, and it’s not something every actor would undertake other than those willing to push themselves and their craft.

In terms of how it is structured the movie does a superb job of weaving its many sources together. Obviously it has no straightforward narrative but everything within it intently revolves around the man himself and all feels tightly focussed and constructed. It’s a humane portrait but one that never escapes the grasp of its makers. But as easy as it would be to just recount Ledger’s filmography the movie goes one step further as it never fails to infuse a sense of humanity into proceedings. It’s not about Heath Ledger the movie star, it is about Heath Ledger the actor who strove to improve his craft, and was admired by so many.

Intimate and personal in the best of ways, ‘I Am Heath Ledger’ does not dissect its subject but it is a fine celebration of him.

Result: 7/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

"The dead have taken command of the sea. Searching for a girl, a pearl and a Sparrow."

I don’t know what it’s like for everyone else, but nostalgia really sucks don’t you think? I mean you can be completely and utterly accepting that something is not that good on an objective level but they make one quick mention of something you remember fondly from your childhood and you can’t stop watching even though you want to. That basically applies to me when it comes to this franchise. The first ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ is something that I remember fondly from my childhood and something that still holds up decently to this day. I wish I could say the same for the sequels.

Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing even more strongly when deadly ghost sailors led by his old nemesis, the evil Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil's Triangle. Jack's only hope of survival lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer and a headstrong young man in the British navy.

So this is apparently ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales’ (or ‘Salazar’s Revenge’ in some areas because apparently Disney thought it wasn’t ridiculous enough already) is a thing that exists and I am therefore obligated to review it. That being said the last instalment turned a hefty profit so I suppose in that regard it does make sense to continue the franchise, but said last film was so utterly bland and devoid of anything remotely memorable that the whole franchise just feels like more of an exercise in futility than ever. This instalment is, by some baffling oddity, even more forgetful and pointless.

That is actually somewhat disappointing, especially given that a whole new creative team was drafted to direct this new instalment after Gore Verbinski directed the first three and Rob Marshall helmed the lacklustre fourth. The directors this time around are Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg, the due behind the impressive 2012 Norwegian film ‘Kon-Tiki’. The direction itself on ‘Dead Men Tell No Tales’ is mostly competent and sometimes notable but to be honest that was never really the problem with this franchise. All of them have been solidly directed, what has plagued them and continues to do so is a complete lack of tonal consistency. The film tries to balance drama, comedy and adventure which is far from impossible but in this case the film only seems capable of conveying one mood in any one scene, meaning that going from scene to scene is frustratingly jarring in tone.

Like the other sequels as well there is no clear narrative thrust to be found for a majority of ‘Dead Men Tell No Tales’. It’s just one magical McGuffin, one meaningless backstory, another motivation, some special curse, a revenge plot, a flashback and son on until you realise there’s been no cohesive underline to this story and we’re already halfway through the movie. When the plot of sorts finally does kick in I’m not invested enough within the characters to even care. Which brings me to another problem, as in the problem that I just mentioned. While the characters from ‘Curse of the Black Pearl’ weren’t exactly complex you could understand their motivation and were therefore sympathetic towards them. That just isn’t the same here, everyone just kind of goes where the script tells them to without much rhyme or reason.

Of course, ‘Dead Men Tell No Tales’ actually reintroduces the characters played by Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly having not seen them since ‘At World’s End’ and I must admit I personally got a nostalgic kick out of seeing them on screen in these roles again, albeit very briefly. I also found myself surprised at how much I enjoyed just being within this world again. Even though the mythology of this franchise is convoluted beyond reason the feel and atmosphere of it, combined with that terrific theme that still makes almost any scene it’s attached to stand out, was somewhat immersive to see again.

But I think what hurts this movie most of all is the comedy, or should I say the attempts at comedy because they all fall so painfully flat. Everything from the one-liners to the running jokes just feel horribly unfunny and to make matters worse each one contains a pause as if that’s where they thought the audience would be laughing like a bad Adam Sandler film. It’s just awkward and goes nowhere, and as I said before because according to the logic of this movie a scene can’t convey more than one thing at a time you know they have several more minutes of this before we can move on. Bardem could have been interesting but he isn’t given enough to do as part of this franchise’s long running line of undead ship captains out to settle a debt. I don’t think it’s even worth saying that Depp’s performance is infuriatingly shallow, boasting nothing other than a few silly gestures and catchphrases. Again, this would be acceptable if like in the first movie he was part of an ensemble, but here he’s still pushed as a main character and it’s still awful.

Repetitive and derivative of its own predecessors, ‘Dead men Tell No Tales’ makes the franchise feel more stagnant than ever.

Result: 3/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Franchise So Far...

One would think that a theme park ride would only offer so many storylines but the folks at Walt Disney Studios evidently disagree and as we look down on what will be the fifth instalment of ‘The Pirates of the Caribbean’ franchise it seems only fitting to take a look back on the franchise so far. Wish me luck, I may not make it all the way through.

It must have come as a shock to everyone involved when that first film became the hit it did in 2003. Swashbuckling and pirate stories were not exactly a hot commodity at the time, but when ‘Curse of the Black Pearl’ opened it held a special kind of feeling that was radically different from any other major studio picture at the time. It was also significant in that it was the first film from Walt Disney to be rated PG-13 by the MPAA. Re-watching it today, with the mistakes of the sequels being so present in my mind, it was frankly astonishing how excellent that first film was. Critics will often praise a genre film for “knowing what it is” which is essentially a code phrase for being tonally consistent which is exactly what ‘Curse of the Black Pearl’ is. There is an array of action, fantasy, adventure, humour and dare I say some horror-esque elements but they all blend together brilliantly. Under the direction of Gore Verbinski the film has a finely crafted feel to it but also a sense of pulsating energy that permeates every frame.

What is more impressive still is the character work. In an odd way it reminds me of James Gunn’s recent films (and not just because Zoe Saldana is in it) in that every character has some sort of arc, development or running theme. Even minor characters get some sort of cathartic moment to an aspect of their personality that was earlier established and even though there is still a lot going on in regards to backstories and exposition it all feels intrinsically linked to the main focus of the film, as well as being delivered in a way that feels natural to the plot’s progression. Even the CGI holds up remarkably well, particularly in a climactic action sequence where the actors are repeatedly and seamlessly switched out with CGI doubles.

The real strong point though is the cast who are all terrific in their roles. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly share good on screen chemistry that can carry the emotional crux of the movie. It’s great to see Geoffrey Rush being so fully committed to the role as the villainous Barbossa, bringing great charisma and menace to the part. But if we’re talking charisma you know where this is going. Johnny Depp received an Oscar nomination for his role as Captain Jack Sparrow and honestly, taking this movie alone it’s not at all surprising. Depp so many distinct nuances and great physical traits to the character that he is instantly burned into your memory. Yes it’s a caricature but it’s a caricature done with such commitment and flawlessness that you have to applaud.

Sadly, like any caricature though, when it’s overused it can go from charming to annoying in a matter of minutes. That is one of the many problems with the higher budget sequel ‘Dead Man’s Chest’. That being said there is a lot to like in this mess of a film. It loses that tonal consistency that made the first one so enjoyable and the pacing and structure of the film is so convoluted that it feels exhausting to sit through it. Whereas you could argue Depp was just part of an ensemble in the first he seems to be thrust forward and centre here (I’ll elaborate later on why that is such a problem as it only gets worse as the films progress). The problem is that each plot thread and sequence feels enjoyable enough, but hardly any of them feel relevant to the main story of the movie, which is….I’m honestly not that sure. Take the reunion of Jack and Will, which is established via a lengthy sub-plot about cannibal tribes and false gods that feels fun at first but is treated with such seriousness and goes on for so long that it detracts from the main movie. But as I said, there’s still a lot to enjoy especially as Verbinski’s direction is still superb and the cinematography in particular feels like a significant improvement upon the first. Some of the set pieces are especially inspired, such as the three way duel. Not only is it brilliantly staged and orchestrated but every character involved has an established and relatable motivation, and the sequence itself escalates with such brilliant ridiculousness that just when you think it’s reached its height it goes on even more and is great for it. But then you reach the end of it, exhilarated and exhausted, and you realise there’s still half an hour of the movie left and you don’t have the energy to care. 

Mind you, all of this is nothing compared to what is next. When people ask about the most confusing movies ever made they recall the work of David Lynch or Ingmar Bergman. I however, point to ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End’. It seems that in the process of making these films someone forgot to tell the creative team that their movie isn’t ‘Lord of the Rings’. It’s not based on one of the most acclaimed works of fiction of the 20th century, it is based on a theme park ride. As I said before, the first movie still had a lot going on but it was all with the intent of going towards a single goal. You could sum up the plot in a few sentences and the rest was just there to enrich the characters and world. To this day I still have no idea what the plot of ‘At World’s End’. It’s just minute after minute of contrived plot points, overly complicated mythology and an infuriating amount of rules and regulation governing this supposed pirate fantasy. And it all goes NOWHERE, I mean literally nothing has any bearing or relevance to the ultimate plot. The pirate brethren, pieces of eight, detour to Shanghai, weird multiple personalities of Johnny Depp, something to do with an East India Trading Company and another ship of undead monsters, it all amounts to jack-shit. There are entire subplots of this movie that I had completely erased from my memory, subplots that take up a good half hour of the films gargantuan runtime. One scene isn’t just tonally inconsistent from another, it’s on an entirely different astral plane. Character development and motivations are almost as nonsensical as the actual character actions, with everyone betraying everyone else despite the fact that the previous movies led me to believe that they actually had some mild affection for one another, or at least enough not to sell them down the river when it’s convenient. What was even up with that whole Calypso thing? Was all that just so you could get a cool set piece at the end of your movie? You know there is such a thing as editing right?

So, I decided to bail on that before I drifted into insanity. So four years later Jack Sparrow returned yet again with ‘On Stranger Tides’ which at the very least manages to go back to basics. No more complicated squid monsters and sea Goddess’, just Jack and some fine adventure. Except it kind of sucks. By no means is there anything inherently wrong with ‘On Stranger Tides’ but it feels so completely devoid of that innovation and distinct charm that made the first film so enjoyable. The plot, action and general tone of the movie just all feel flat and uninspired. I think a lot of that is due to the character dynamic. As I stated earlier Jack Sparrow simply does not work when he isn’t part of an ensemble. For these films to succeed they rely on his antics and charisma being ever present throughout the story, which doesn’t exactly lend itself to character depth or dramatic range. He needs to stay the same throughout because any development would risk changing his character. In the first film we had Bloom and Knightly to provide the emotional arc of the movie whilst Jack reacted to them whilst setting the plot in motion. Sparrow is the maverick to the straight man that is the rest of the world. When you try to make a caricature the focus of your movie it doesn’t matter how well Depp plays him, he’s still a caricature. Which brings us up to date and up to the next one. Learn from your mistakes guys.