Toothpick TV: Arrested Development

A few articles ago I spoke about brilliant television shows that were axed to make way for horrendous television that seems to flourish these days. Chief amongst those examples was a show that ran for three struggling seasons, lost the Emmy for best comedy to (no sh*t) Will and Grace, and then died a quiet death to the dismay of a shocked audience. In my mind, this was the funniest show ever made (along with It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which I will review later), and that show was… was Arrested Development.

I doubt you have ever seen this show, but I guarantee you have at least heard of it. During its short time on television this show was able to generate an image as one of the most original comedies to ever come out, and since its demise it is now often referred to as arguably the greatest comedy ever made (even more than Seinfeld). It also created a fan base so loyal and so fanatical that every time the series faced cancellation the fans would plead, march, and protest outside Fox in the hopes of renewing it for just one more season.

How was this show so well regarded? In my mind, it was because quite simply, it just plain got everything right. It starred the greatest comedic ensemble ever brought together and headed by a rebounding Jason Bateman, it was written by Mitchell Hurwitz (who would later go on to create It’s Always Sunny in Philidelphia with Robb McElheny), it was produced by film legends Bryan Grazer and Ron Howard, and was even narrated by Howard himself. It even won several Emmys for the first season it was on, but began getting shunned when the Emmys realized they were supporting a failing show.

The show centered around a wealthy family trying to cope in the middle of an economic crisis when their accounts are frozen after their patriarch father is arrested for a myriad of shady charges. What’s different with this show is the fact that this family is comprised of HORRIBLE people, and even though they occasionally show moments of humanity and likeability they are generally selfish, obnoxious, or idiotic. The mother of the main character is a condescending and verbally abusive drunk, the sister is a histrionic and self centered liar, the older brother is an idiotic magician, and the younger brother is… well… special. The only decent person in the family is the main character Michael, but even he has moments where he demonstrates a selfish nature and has a habit of neglecting his son’s wishes.

What really sets this show apart from other comedies however (and the reason it is so brilliant) is the style of its comedy, or rather the maturation of it. This show doesn’t typically follow the style of most shows on TV where it follows the basic “Setup->Payoff->Repeat” process of TV comedy. Instead of an immediate payoff followed by a laugh track, the show tends to allow the joke to linger and age so that the payoff is done in a much more rewarding way. What do I mean by this? Well it’s time for a little lesson in comedy.

In the world of comedy there are basically two different ways to elicit a laugh. The first of these methods is “the gag”, which typically consists of a quick, simple sight that the audience finds funny. This can be anything from the simple “guy falls down and goes boom” shtick which is so prevalent in Adam Sandler style films:

to “visual gags” that were made famous in films like Airplane:

to recurring gags which are actually repeating gags that become funnier the more the audience is exposed to them:

Don't you dare pretend that you don't know the name of this look.

 Typically gags are the easiest laugh to elicit and are regarded as immature and trivial if used poorly or too frequently, much like “pop out and create loud noise” scares in scary movie. Arrested Development uses gags in their comedy, but they are typically clever and well done sight gags and never really devolve into “man fall down… go boom” comedy. The show also uses them sparingly, or more importantly, to advance the story. For example, in a scene where Gob falls into a pool it isn’t the fall itself that is funny, but the fact that he is carrying a cooler full of exonerating evidence which is then promptly destroyed.

The second way to tell a joke or elicit a laugh is the harder and more rewarding “Setup->Payoff” technique, or the “punch line”. Typically this technique is exactly what it sounds like, where someone will say a line or setup a situation, and then down the line (either immediately or after a longer period of time) something will happen as a payoff to the initial setup called a punch line, drum roll, cue laugh track, repeat. The longer the period between setup and payoff, the funnier the joke typically is, but if you wait too long for the payoff, then you risk the joke growing stagnant or being forgotten. This is a surprisingly delicate setup, but typically the bread and butter of almost every decent sitcom on television, and it’s also the workhorse for Arrested Development.

Where Arrested Development really shines though isn’t so much in the execution of the joke, but in the perfectly matured delivery of the joke. Where most sitcoms have a setup with an immediate payoff, Arrested Development takes risks and allows a joke to build steam before the payoff is finally executed. The maturation period between jokes vary, but some of these jokes have payoffs that the viewer won’t even see coming until the end of the episode, and I can think of several jokes that take so long to reach the punch line that the viewer doesn’t even know that they’re jokes. During one season one of the biggest story arcs revolved around a main character being retarded (no, not Buster), but the audience wasn’t aware of this fact until about halfway through the season. As a result every single line this person had spoken takes on a new light and pays off in ways the audience didn’t even expect.

Another direction the show sometimes takes is a combination of the “setup-payoff” structure and the “repeated gag” structure. For example, a quick joke will be told which is initially funny, but as the payoff is repeated and applied to other situations the result is much funnier than the initial payoff. Any person who is lucky enough to have seen the show will know just how funny these seemingly pointless moments are, such as:

The Charlie Brown Theme

“Her?”

 “But where did the lighter fluid come from?”

Microwaving a Ding Dong

“Who’s Anne?”

“I’m Oscar… dot com.”

“Look at banner Michael!”

“So say goodbye… to THESE!”

“There are literally dozens of us!’

“Who’s the ‘her’ in that sentence?”

Finally, the last major comedic component that helps put this comedy in a class of its own is the fact that there are just plain SO MANY jokes. When overusing jokes like crappy shows tend to do they run the risk of becoming obnoxious. Shows like Whitney or Will and Grace were notorious for this, where their laugh tracks were so overused that anyone at home watching ended up not understanding what the hell is going on, or feeling insulted that a show was prompting them to laugh at something that just plain wasn’t funny. Arrested Development gets around this problem by:

A.      Not using a laugh track

B.      Having the jokes be genuinely funny

C.      Filming the actors reactions rather than using the awkward “pause for laughter” effect

There are so many jokes on this show that it literally gets funnier on repeated viewings. Many of the jokes are so well scripted and subtly delivered that the viewer may not even notice them initially. I can think of one joke where Michael remarks about the detail of television shows, and in response Tobias says something along the lines of “You know those Hollywood shows, there’s always so much detail in them”. After saying his line he opens up a food cupboard which contains nothing but a single bowl for him to pull out on cue, and a Starbucks coffee cup that a stage hand left behind on the set, but it’s kind of hard to see these items. It’s so subtle that most viewers would miss it, especially since most jokes on sitcoms these days are always hitting you over the head with the punch line. Even better is that a minute or so later another character opens the cupboard and we the audience are treated to seeing him pull out a candy bar that wasn’t there a moment ago, it’s just so brilliant!

All these components together make for a great recipe, but the catalyst that puts it all together is the talented cast of genuinely funny comic geniuses. Every single person on this show is perfect in their role, whether it be a surprisingly funny Jason Bateman in the lead, or David Cross as a less than subtle closet case/wanna be actor, or Tony Hale as a special needs social pariah who is overly dependant on his mother, or Jeffrey Tambor as the lying, conniving patriarch of the family who may or may not be innocent. My personal favorite was Will Arnett (who I personally believe to be the funniest man alive) as the self-obsessed failed magician brother Gob, and sadly (or happily?) I believe that Gob Bluth will be the greatest role Mr. Arnett ever play.

So how could this show possibly have failed? Well, for such a brilliant and well made show, there were surprisingly a lot of reasons. First of all, this was not a show for the popcorn munching, Whitney watching masses. Not to sound condescending, but if you try to make a sitcom that is different than the other generic cookie cutter sitcoms out there you better be on a cable network if you want any security. I don’t want to sound condescending (which I totally am), but typically people don’t like different things, and watching a show as intelligent and original as Arrested Development makes them feel uncomfortable that there isn’t a laugh track or something available to prompt them to laugh. This type of comedy can sometimes distance a viewer, and it’s a big reason why many of the best regarded comedy films or television comedies aren’t initially well received (Arrested Development, Zoolander, Big Lebowski, Tropic Thunder, the first Austin Powers), but begin to spread in popularity upon repeated viewings.

When writing about Fringe I mentioned that one of its biggest problems is that the since the show is perpetually moving forward it’s very hard for new viewers to be able to tune in and enjoy, and sadly this was the same case with Arrested Development. This is one of the first sitcoms I can think of that had a story arc that was truly advanced through each episode, and while it paid off big with great character arcs and an intriguing story, the problem was that the average viewer might jump in about eight episodes deep and scratch their heads at what was going on. This led to a fan base that never really had a chance to grow, despite the great word of mouth that everyone was hearing about this show.

I’d love to say that Fox dropped the ball and cancelled this show before it even had a chance like it did with Firefly, Family Guy, and so many other great shows, but that isn’t the case here. This show was brought back from the dead several times because Fox saw a lot of potential in it, it just didn’t catch on the way it should have (there was even an episode of the show where the premise was a thinly veiled reference to this fact). Luckily for everyone the show is ready to make a comeback, as Netflix has bought the rights and plans on releasing at least two more seasons of the show followed by a big screen adaptation. This makes fans like myself giddy for a show like I never could have imagined, and soon everyone will have another chance to enjoy the greatest comedy ever made.

101 Reasons Why I Love Movies

A few days ago Quint from aintitcoolnews.com proposed a chain letter for all movie fans to write out their reasons for why they love film. As a hack, two bit, wanna be critic, I find it fitting to add my two cents of why I love film:

Because of the look on the warden’s face when he finds Andy Dufresne’s escape hole.

Because of Freddy Krueger’s fifteen foot long arms.

Because Vader was Luke’s father all along.

Because we’ll always have Paris.

Because the Goonies taught me it was alright to be a kid.

Because the Terminator gave John Connor a thumbs up.

Because of Popeye Doyle.

Because of Butch saving Marsellus Wallace.

Because it’s not the years, it’s the mileage.

Because of the noise that the TARDIS makes.

Because of Viggo Mortenson replacing Stuart Townsend as Aragorn.

Because Hellboy gets the girl in the end.

Because of ECTO-1.

Because of the Drunken Samurai.

Because of Doc Brown inventing time travel after hitting his head on a toilet while hanging a clock.

Because the cries of a baby stopped a war in Children of Men.

Because of Ferris Bueller getting away with it.

Because the force is my ally, and a powerful ally it is.

Because Shaun’s got red on him.

Because of Michael Corleone standing guard outside his father’s hospital room.

Because of the Mexican standoff in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Because of flying monkeys.

Because of James Stewart’s pleas in front of Congress.

Because of the Wolverines.

Because of Wolverine.

Because of Bill Paxton in Aliens.

Because of how the Predator looked.

Because there’s no fate but what we make for ourselves.

Because of Shadow making it home with a limp.

Because of the trailer for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Because of Roger’s zombification scene in Dawn of the Dead.

Because of Sam Raimi’s camerawork.

Because the Maltese Falcon was a fake.

Because Jack Sparrow was an Anti-Hero.

Because of Simon finally telling Kaylee what he thinks about her.

Because of the Joker’s magic trick.

Because Kumar had an abusive relationship with a bag of weed.

Because of Rooster Cogburn… both of them.

Because David Spritz’s eulogy of his father was “When I think of my father, I think of Like a Rock by Bob Seger…”

Because Robocop had a huge ass gun in his leg.

Because Mr. Pink doesn’t tip.

Because of the missile launch in The Rock.

Because Buzz and Woody became best friends.

Because of Paul Giamatti in Sideways.

Because of Paul Giamatti in Cinderella Man.

Because of Paul Giamatti in Shoot em’ Up.

Because of Paul Giamatti in American Splendor.

Because of Paul Giamatti.

Because of Colonel Hans Landa.

Because Iron Man was created out of desperation.

Because Bruce Willis was dead all along.

Because a light that burns twice as bright lasts half as long.

Because Peter Parker was, and always will be a nerd.

Because of Quatto.

Because of Bruce Campbell’s chainsaw arm.

Because Indy shot the sword fighter.

Because of when John McClane threw C4 down an elevator shaft.

Because of Bela Lugosi as Dracula.

Because of Harry Potter out-flying a dragon.

Because of Maverick finding his nerves again.

Because of the theme for the Ark of the Covenant giving me goose bumps whenever I hear it.

Because of Winston digging Jesus’ style.

Because we’re gonna need a bigger boat.

Because of Ellen Ripley.

Because of Anton Shigurh’s silenced shotgun and air gun.

Because I can watch ten Meryl Streep movies and swear I was watching ten different actresses.

Because of the Witch-King’s screams.

Because the Bride gets her daughter back.

Because of Jaws… the shark AND the henchman.

Because if the Reavers catch us, they’ll rape us to death, eat us, and wear our skins as clothing… and if we’re very, very lucky, they’ll do it in that order.

Because of Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice.

Because of the Batmoblile.

Because Fredo broke Michael’s heart.

Because where we’re going, we don’t need roads.

Because of Lando Calrissian.

Because of the trailer for Inception.

Because Gore Verbinski refused to fire Johny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean.

Because of Tom Cruise climbing the Dubai tower in real life.

Because of the final line in There Will Be Blood.

Because of the musical styles of Two Steps From Hell.

Because of Tony Montana’s little friend.

Because of Dan Akroyd in Grosse Pointe Blank.

Because of Yvaine telling Tristan that she loved him while he was a mouse.

Because of the way they caught Jerry Lundegaard.

Because I believed in Harvey Dent.

Because Truman Burbank questioned his life.

Because of the Cone of Shame.

Because this is Bat Country.

Because HAL told Michael he was sorry.

Because of the commentary track for Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn.

Because of Ron Burgundy ‘s suits.

Because Boo Radley saved the day.

Because of The Pumpkin King.

Because of Mr. Incredible getting back in shape.

Because of Bluto’s face when they drop the booze.

Because I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley.

Because of Deep Focus.

Because Roy Batty didn’t want to be forgotten.

Because of the War Room Scene from Dr. Strangelove.

Because of Oscar Schindler’s final regrets.

Because of Will Munny losing his s**t in the bar.

My Best of 2011 List

I’m certainly not a professional movie critic, so my scope in films over the year is severely limited to say the least. I certainly try to see the big buzz blockbusters, but there are quite a few movies that have slipped through the cracks for me. That being said, it would be sort of counterproductive to write a “Best Of 2011” column for something as limited as my experiences, so here is a quick roundup of moments and people from film and TV that I enjoyed this year.

Be warned, thar be spoilers ahead!

Top Five Heroes of 2011:

1. Colter Stevens (Source Code)-The regular person (myself included) whines when they have to go into work with a cold, so it takes a real hero to finish an important assignment when they are informed that they were literally killed a month ago. Captain Colter Stevens reminds the audience of the importance of the greater good, even after realizing it’s for a world he no longer has any part in.

2. Po (Kung Fu Panda 2)-Po won over both audiences and his fellow kung-fu masters in the original film with his balls to the wall love of all things kung-fu and his desire to protect those around him, but his second go around makes him all the more more likeable. After discovering the dark history of a life he never knew, Po refuses to let it bring him down, and instead uses it to achieve inner peace and perform the impossible.

3. Rory the Last Centurion (Doctor Who)-It may have been the Doctor who tracked Amy Pond to the impregnable fortress of Demon’s Run, but it was Rory who led the charge with a sword in one hand and a laser in the other.  Good-hearted, loyal, and willing to plunge headfirst into Hell itself for his wife and child, Rory shows us all how even the most unassuming of characters can have the heart of a warrior. It also doesn’t hurt that he has the training of a thousand year old centurion to help transform him into a badass.

4. Captain Archibald Haddock (The Adventures of Tintin)-At first glance Haddock may appear to be a lost cause in the form of an incompetent and alcoholic oaf, but when pressed into dire situations or when his friends are in danger this lumbering doofus can become the most hardened of warriors to save the day. When not fighting for his friends he also delivers motivational speeches so epically that they deserve an Oscar unto themselves.

5. George Smiley (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)-Amidst a web of deceit, lies, and disgrace, former British Intelligence agent George Smiley still remains cool enough to root out an impossible to find Soviet mole while in the midst of being set up to take the fall. His sharp wits, expert detective skills, and years of training have made him the type of hardened man that even Batman would envy, and he always manages to remain levelheaded in spite of his critical situation.

Top Five Villains of 2011:

1. Professor James Moriarty (Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows)-A master of deceit, a legend in the world of literature, and portrayed by an actor of the highest caliber, Professor James T Moriarty is reinvigorated on the big screen in spectacular fashion. Brilliant, sinister, and full of seething hatred at the human condition, Moriarty’s loathing for legendary detective Sherlock Holmes is only surpassed by his immense  respect for the man, making their first meeting a moment of barely restrained hatred behind a façade of pleasant smiles and autographs.

2. Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2)-The instantly recognizable villain of the Harry Potter universe returns in the final film installment of the decade spanning series, and what a return it is. When Ralph Fiennes isn’t chewing the scenery by the mouthful he’s exuding pure, seething evil with such simple grace that one has to wonder in fear just how this guy excels at playing such fantastic villains.

3. Helen Harris (Bridesmaids)-A perfectly relatable villain to anyone who has encountered someone like her (probably all of us), Helen Harris is the quintessential personification of the limelight stealing, passive aggressive c**t born for the sole purpose of making your life miserable. Whether she’s sabotaging your best laid plans, undermining your ideas, or stealing credit from where it is due, the antagonist of this witty and well-scripted film brings something to the table that makes everyone cringe in hatred… a sense of real life relation.

4. “Them” (Cowboys and Aliens)-A film that had a polarizing effect on its’ audiences to say the least, this film which was begging for schlock treatment was instead given a serious play thanks to talented director Jon Favreau. As a result, we get a race of aliens that are a perfect blend of original looking aliens (how great is it to see something other than a “grey” attacking Earth?) and physically powerful movie monsters.

5. Sebastian Shaw (X-men: First Class)-Fans have been clamoring for an X-men film about the Hellfire Club, and while January Jones nearly sank the idea with her portrayal of Emma Frost Kevin Bacon singlehandedly pulled the wreckage from the depths and made that film his b*tch. A brilliant and powerful mutant hellbent on global annihilation, Shaw brings a villainous attitude to the screen that’s part campy comic book super-villainry, and part James Bond super-villainry. The end result is the most campy and fun interpretation of a comic villain since Jack Nicholson stepped into the shoes of the Joker.

Top Five Moments of 2011

1. The Motorcycle Chase (The Adventures of Tintin)-Fast, taut, and exciting, the climactic chase scene near the end of this film is a perfectly paced action set piece reminiscent of the truck scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. As Tintin chases down a runaway eagle through the streets of Bagghar, the only thing more pressing than catching the bird is the wall of water nipping at his heels.

2. The Game Changer (Doctor Who)-Three loud crackles of energy rang out on Silencio Lake, and less than fifteen minutes into the sixth series premiere everything you knew about Doctor who changed in a flash. Thus started the mystery and dilemma that carried throughout the entire season, leading to the most unexpected wedding in the history of the show and promising even more questions to be solved in the seventh series.

3. The Turn (X-men: First Class)-Magneto may be one of the greatest anti-heroes in the history of comic books. Not quite a sociopathic villain like the Joker, and not quite an amoral hero like the Punisher, Magneto runs a campaign of evil based on moral convictions which we all know are true, but these beliefs all stem from his personal life experiences and his short time as a hero. In this newest X-men adventure we are treated to an interpretation of when Magneto just plain went too far, and it’s just as awesome and terrifying as we could have hoped for.

4. The Sandstorm (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol)-The tower heist is spectacular, the operation is awesome, but the foot/car chase that ensues as a sandstorm begins to blow into Dubai is a thousand times as intense as anything in the most over-inflated summer action film. This scene shows how, with a little good direction, some great stuntwork, and a good score, you can create a scene that comes across much more exciting and better looking than even the most expensive CG action scenes.

5. Gary Oldman (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)-He may not be an actual moment, but Gary Oldman is definitely a reason to still go see movies. It seems people like Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman continue to get Oscars for playing… Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, but the real talent in Hollywood are the chameleons. People like Johny Depp, Meryl Streep, and Gary Oldman are who I find the most fascinating because I can watch ten of their films and if I didn’t know better I would swear I had just watched ten different actors playing those roles.

Top Five Dorks of 2011

1. Adam Sandler (Jack and Jill)-Only a true dork (or a brilliant money launderer: hint hint) could take eighty million dollars and produce a film as horrible as Jack and Jill. Add to it the countless product placements , endorsements, and commercials throughout the film and you have upwards of over 100 million dollars to make a movie that looks like it costs maybe 10 to do. It’s almost as if the money somehow disappeared… into someone’s pockets… allegedly.

2. Sam Witwicky (Transformers: Dark of the Moon)-Sam has always been an obnoxious character, but it wasn’t until the third film that he decided to become a full blown child. Acting like a spoiled, whining baby instead of the steadfast hero we are supposed to believe he is, watching him throw hissy fits helps us suddenly understand why his first girlfriend left him.

3. Hector Hammond (The Green Lantern)-Having a ridiculously massive head doesn’t automatically make you a badass super-villain, it makes you Beldar from Coneheads, only not as intimidating.

4. The Smurfs (The Smurfs)-How does this film get a worldwide release while films like The Goon and At the Mountains of Madness die quiet, uneventful deaths in production Hell? 142 million dollars… that’s how.

5. Ron Weasley (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2)-Unlike everyone else on this list, Ron is the endearing type of dork. He’s panicky for a hero and a bit of an awkward pariah, but he never fails to make us laugh, and is always dependable in a tight situation. He’s like that friend you really enjoy hanging out with, but hesitate to introduce to the rest of your friends.

My Top Five Most Enjoyable (Not Necessarily Best) Films of 2011

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2-9 out of 10

2. Cowboys and Aliens-9 out of 10

3. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol-9.5 out of 10

4. Source Code-9 out of 10

5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo-9.5 out of 10

(Special Recognition in the field of excellence)

Thor-8.5 out of 10

Adventures of Tintin-8.5 out of 10

Arthur Christmas-8 out of 10

Paul-9 out of 10

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows-8 out of 10

One Minute Reviews: TinTin, Dragon, and Holmes

The Adventures of Tintin-I went into this film without a clue of what it was, but a dedication to see it because of my love for Peter Jackson, Stephen Moffet, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, and Andy Serkis. I had a preconception that this was going to be a CG flick of something akin to an Indiana Jones movie, but what I got was so much better than a derivative adventure film.

Easily my all-time top pick for the best use of CG, motion capture, voice acting, and 3D in a film (yes, even more than Avatar), Tintin is a fantastic film that harkens back to the older pulp adventure serials that Indiana Jones was also trying to recreate. The result is a fantastic and exciting adventure filled with funny and likeable characters brought to life through some of the best voice acting in history (with a special standout performance by Andy Serkis).  What makes this film stand out from the competition is the expert pacing, as the action set pieces masterfully outdo each set piece before and every twenty minutes is even more exciting than the previous twenty minutes. All the tension builds to a frantic climax centering around a motorcycle chase scene that easily competes for my favorite moment in film for 2011. Following this is a genuine and powerful moment of expository and character driven dialogue that’s so well written and quotable that it proves once again why Andy Serkis is at the top of his class.

My biggest regret with the film is that it just sort of ends, but I don’t mean that in the anti-climactic, sudden endings that I’ve been complaining about recently. It just feels like there could have been a lot more resolution for these characters after we have grown to like them so much, even though I know they were just trying to set up the sequel. At times it also feels like it was slightly pandering to a younger audience, which is a shame because the film is at its’ best when it’s trying to be a family film and not a children’s film.

 All in all though I liked The Adventures of Tintin a lot while I was watching it, but it wasn’t until after the credits rolled that I realized just how much I wanted to watch it all over again from the beginning. A real treat.

8.5 out of 10

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo-There’s never been a doubt in my mind that David Fincher is one of the best directors in Hollywood, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo once again shows just how talented and original this director is. Taking what was deemed an impossible project (the original film came out just over two years ago), David Fincher has created a tense and psychological noir thriller worthy of his other entries.

Fincher has a real love for two things; detective work and sociopathy, and he seems to demonstrate this in many of his films (Se7en, Zodiac, The Game). His newest work once again combines both of those elements into a film that always has you guessing what’s coming next, even going so far as to continue the story in an unexpected fourth act. His use of lighting, scene construction, music (done once again by the outstanding Trent Reznor), and most of all, ambiance creates a film that is perpetually suspenseful, even in the relaxed moments of the film. Now I have to confess, I never saw the original film or read the bestselling book, but if they have half of the magic of this film then they are alright in my book.

Fincher’s love and understanding of detective work has always been one of his greatest strengths, but also his greatest weakness as demonstrated in the film Zodiac. In my mind this was probably the greatest detective story ever told, but it turned a lot of people off with its’ long running time and somewhat slow build up of tension (just like real police work!). Fincher seems to have learned from this experience however, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo mixes the slow build up of an investigative story with an exciting story of Lizbeth Slander and interesting character development between the two leads.

SPOILERS

Now I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the rape scene, as it’s been getting a lot of people up in arms, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Almost every rape scene in film is added for shock value, but in this movie it seems like a necessary evil to show the scene so we could understand the horrible life this girl has and why she responds the way she does. Believe me, I’d be the first to cry foul if I didn’t think something this serious wasn’t handled properly, but Fincher is a responsible enough director to know how to create this scene respectfully and delicately.

END SPOILERS

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo isn’t as exciting or accessible as most of Fincher’s other films, and at times it feels like a film he was pressured into making and not his own pet project, but overall it’s a fantastic first entry into this new and exciting trilogy property.

9 out of 10

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows-A lot of people don’t know this, but Professor James Moriarty is the first “arch-enemy” ever found in literary history, laying the groundwork for what a great overarching villain should be. This is important because I read these books growing up and going into this movie the one thing that kept running through my head was “Jared Harris better knock this out of the park”.

I have been a huge fan of Harris since his run as antagonist Robert Jones in season one of Fringe, and it doesn’t hurt that he’s the son of legendary screen and stage actor Richard Harris, but none of that changed the fact that this film was going to literally rise or sink from his portrayal of this classic Doyle “Napoleon of Crime”. I’m happy to report that he pulls the role off magnificently, adding a crucial piece to the puzzle of why this film worked for me. Between Harris and the addition of a great cast of new characters to the franchise (including the always brilliant Stephen Fry in a standout performance as Holmes’ brother Mycroft), the smooth camerawork, the original use of effects, and stellar work from the returning cast, this film came together into a solid sequel to one of the most original films in the last ten years.

Now a lot of people are complaining that this film isn’t as “slick” or as “cool” as the original, but people who say that just aren’t looking in the right places. Guy Ritchie has always been praised as an actor’s director and a talented cinematographer, but just because we don’t see as many action sequences as the previous film doesn’t at all mean that he hasn’t focused the same magic as before. If anything this film shows a forward progression in his styles, oftentimes trading in cheap and easy “slick” shots for more complicated and effective “style” shots, and when we see these shots in motion they come across as interesting, original, and very, very stylish. The scenes between Holmes and Moriarty for example convey a sense of uneasiness, tension, and dread despite the pleasant tones and smiles between the two men.

Another one of my favorite cases of these shots was a scene where the sniper is chasing after the heroes in a forest while being bombarded with artillery, but during the chaos and hell surrounding him the camera focuses on his face and allows it to remain almost steady as he hurtles through the trees. It’s a tough shot to describe, but it conveys the idea that this man is focused on one thing despite the chaos surrounding him, establishing him as a child of the battlefield without saying a single work of dialogue.

A lot of people are saying that the ending is a cop-out as well, but faithful readers of Sherlock Holmes will know that this is exactly how the book Sherlock Holmes and the Final Problem ended. As soon as I saw that waterfall I knew what was coming, so you can’t possibly fault a director for wanting to (GOD FORBID!) convey the authors’ intentions. As for the plot, anyone with a seventh grade education can figure it out, but I did feel a little disappointment at the lack of Holmes’ signature “exposition” that always signaled the impending end of his books and stories.

All in all I found this movie to be a satisfying follow-up to the original. It may not have had quite the same “original” feel of the first film, but it was just as thoroughly engaging, delightfully witty, and universally appealing as its’ predecessor.

8 out of 10

Twofer tuesday: The Rock and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Wait…what? Why would I pick to do a double review of The Rock and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol? Could I pick two films that had any less to do with each other than the fact that they’re both popcorn action films? Well to be honest, there really isn’t a whole lot these two films have in common on the surface , but that’s not what I’m really interested in with this review. What I AM interested in is the bones of the film, the unseen underworks of the movie, and the beating heart of both these action blockbusters.

Now a lot of you know how I feel about the pompous, self-important , bloated CG cartoon that was Transformers 2 and 3, more importantly… you know how I feel about its director Michael Bay. So imagine my surprise when, while watching The Rock (one of my all-time favorite action films) I discovered that it was NOT directed by Don Simpson like I had previously thought, but by the one and only Michael Bay. This absolutely blew my mind, but made me completely rethink my entire opinion on this man. How could someone as talented and brilliant as the director of this film fall so far from grace with his recent outings? More importantly, how does this factor in with the recent smash hit Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol? Well, we’re going to find out together, and while this may be one of the longer reviews I’ve written in quite a while, it’s also the most personal, and you might just learn how these films have a little more in common than you may think.

I-Effects vs. Stunt Work-Bigger isn’t always better-Quick! Think of the most exhilarating moments from The Rock, Mission Impossible III (or IV), and Transformers 2 or 3. I don’t know about you, but when I think of The Rock I think of scenes like Mason rolling through the incinerator, the shower room shootout, when the marines fire the first rocket, and countless others. In Mission Impossible III I think of scenes like the warehouse shootout, the battle on the bridge, and the Hong Kong tower robbery. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol has countless scenes just as exciting as these, but I won’t mention them out of fear of revealing some spoilers. When I try to think of scenes like these in the two latest Transformers films I think of elaborate action set pieces that don’t really elicit the same reactions as the other films, and why do you suppose that is? People who have read my reviews will know how caring about these characters adds a lot more tension and gravity to these situations, but another part of eliciting these feeling stems from the original, practical, and precise creation of these scenes.

Once upon a time computer generated imagery (CGI) was the wave of the future and was used to supplement special effects or action scenes. It started with noble intentions, but as the technology was advanced and exploited as complacency in Hollywood set in it grew into a monster that allowed lazy directors to create entire film scenes with it. Nowhere is this more visible than in the Star Wars prequels, where the entire scene seems to look like a fancy cartoon, but another great example can be found in the last two Transformers films. The technology is used by Michael Bay to create cartoony looking fight scenes between cartoony looking robots in cartoony looking cities. No work was needed to create these scenes, and as a result creating high tech Saturday morning cartoon action scenes doesn’t create any real sense of awe anymore in an audience that is no longer impressed by special effects in this day and age. I mean if I wanted to see clean looking CG action pieces I would play a video game like Uncharted 2, Gears of War 3, or countless others that look just as good as real life.

Now compare these sterile, cartoony looking action scenes with the action pieces from the other films I brought up. Real stunts requiring things like precise timing, execution, and physical effort can create a visceral reaction in the audience such as a gasp, a jump, or an increased heart rate, reactions which can be associated with the same feelings the characters in the scene must be experiencing. This linking of emotional response is called an “emotional association”, and as a result this response helps pull the audience into this amazing scene or stunt they have just witnessed and also creates a tension that all the fake CG robots in the world can’t create. Think of scenes like the “Tower Climb” in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, a scene which created an audible gasp from the audience which I haven’t heard since… well… since a few of the stunts in The Rock. But don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself. Now honestly tell me, which of the following scenes do you find more exhilarating? The antiquated and CG-less incinerator scene from The Rock (starting at 1:08)…

Or the dazzling and colorful cartoon robot fight scene from Transformers 3?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I can honestly say that the incinerator scene creates waaaaaaay more excitement and tension than cartoon robots. Now of course you can say that story wise there was a lot more going on in The Rock than the absolute nothing in Transformers, but even taken out of context I find the incinerator scene the greater of the two. Why? Because while making this film the director went to the trouble of hiring a stuntman, creating this elaborately dangerous set, and then filming this insanely dangerous scene which came out looking real and amazing. He did NOT just have a computer animator create a colorful action scene out of pixels with little to no effort on his end and have it come out looking like f**king crap, he was forced to actually… wait for it… care about the scene.

II-Definable Components of a Story Arc-A few articles back I wrote about the importance of the Story Arc in a story, and how recently Hollywood appears to have forgotten how to incorporate all five parts of a story arc into a film. One of the reasons I loved MI: GP was that, just like The Rock, it had all five parts which were easily identified throughout the film. These days just including that facet into a film seems to be all it takes to make a film into a masterpiece.

Both films start with a powerful and well executed introduction, MI: GP opens with an exciting, action packed assassination that sets the tone for an exciting, action packed film while The Rock transitions from a quietly powerful cemetery visit into a brilliantly executed base infiltration. This transition shows that while this is an action film at its’ core it definitely has a message behind the action and heart to the story, as well as establishing that General Hummel is an anti-hero and not just a typical villain. This simple extra five minutes of expository monologue perfectly establishes this important facet of the character, a stark contrast to the rushed mess of dialogue that Michael Bay movies will eventually become.

Next comes the majority of the story arc, rising action. Now it’s during this point in the story arc that the majority of other summer blockbusters seem to self-destruct lately, but where films like Transformers and G.I. Joe utterly fail as movies, MI: GP and The Rock excel, and there’s a simple reason why. The former two films convey information poorly and ineffectively, usually with rushed dialogue which is drowned out during action that is occurring on screen. This creates a sense of confusion in the audience, which leads to giving up on following the story, which leads to action scenes that have no significant impact on the audience.

The latter films however create scenes that effectively convey critical information in an effective and simple way, and sadly, this tactic is a thousand times easier to create than trying to create an “exciting” or “exhilarating” way of doing so. A scene will start, characters will exchange genuine, believable dialogue, dialogue which conveys information and reveals personal traits of the character to the audience, and then the scene ends and transitions to the next scene which repeats this simple method. Every scene serves a purpose, and every action advances the story along by increasing either the importance of the situation or the level of tension, hence the name “rising action”.

Both of the latter films each have a clear and distinct climax whereas Transformers, Green Lantern, Captain America, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, and pretty much any other summer blockbuster have impossible to pinpoint climaxes, or climaxes that we don’t realize are supposed to be the climax, but we don’t recognize until the film is over. The Rock and MI: GPs’ climaxes strangely enough both center around the launch of a missile, one towards San Francisco and one towards the U.S., and in each of these scenes the tension of this moment is so intense that there is no doubt in our mind that we are at the climax of the film, with the launch in The Rock being a little more intense and suspenseful in my opinion. So with this information what would you say the climax was in each of those other summer films? I can tell you right now there was no real, literal climax, as the action never really peaked before leading into the next section. In fact, the vast majority of summer releases seem to just create rising action that just keeps rising into the resolution.

Next comes falling action, with MI: GP Ethan hunt and friends try to abort the missile while in The Rock John Mason and Stanley Goodspeed race to disable the last rocket. It’s tense and exciting, and a perfect way to finish the film, but it is definitely falling action since it follows the climax and signals the downward trend of action. Again, most other action films seem to glaze right over this, and I could give examples from the other films I’ve listed but by now I’ve given those examples way too much. And finally we have resolution, with each film tying up the loose ends of the movie.

Now while I’ve stated that having these components is in a movie is necessary to create an effective and engrossing story, it must be a sad time in Hollywood if I have to use The Rock as a prime example of how to convey the story arc in an action film. The Rock isn’t supposed to be Dickens, or Twain, or Shakespeare, or the work of any other master storyteller, it’s meant to be action schlock (albeit excellent action schlock). But in this time of slapped together, lazily written, poorly executed cartoony action films just having a solid story like in the old days of action films transforms a generic action adventure film into movie magic.

III-A New Generation of Action Stars-I’ll keep this brief because I can’t elaborate much on it, but when you take all the physical work out of creating an action set piece by using nothing but CG to create scenes you remove the necessity of action star types to perform in the scene. This is great when you can cast more believable people in the role of a “hero of circumstance” like Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley, but casting directors have gotten so lazy that they aren’t even focusing on the best fit as much as the “hot ticket”. The best example would be casting Shia Lebouf as the hero of multiple action films, and I’m not just talking about the Transformer films, I’m also talking about countless other action/adventure movies such as Eagle Eye, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Disturbia, and so on.

I know it sounds petty and trivial, and for the most part it is, but it’s just next to impossible to believe this weak coward in real life is supposed to be a tough guy in film. And yes, I said coward because a good friend of mine was the Blackhawk pilot at the end of the first Transformers film and said that even though the helicopter was parked and braked during the scenes Shia would cry every… single… time he had to get close to it. Compare this behavior to behind the scenes special features that show Arnold, Bruce, and Tom Cruise doing all their own stunts, often turning away stuntmen to make the scene look more realistic. Hollywood seems to think that anyone can be in an action movie now, and we’ve gone from using action heroes like this…

To action heroes like this...

Now some of you out there may be saying “Well Nicolas Cage isn’t an action hero, and he was in The Rock!”, to which I reply, “I couldn’t agree more”. While I do like Nicolas Cage as an actor, I loathe him as an action hero, and I believe his picture should be right up there with those other three guys. Nicolas Cage is at his best when he’s playing a whiny, loser-y, kind of douche-y fish out of water character battling with crippling self-esteem issues, like in Weatherman, Leaving Las Vegas, and Adaptation. Casting him as some sort of bad-ass would suck, which is exactly what they tend to do with him lately in films such as Ghost Rider, Windtalkers, and of course, Con Air.

Now stop and think about this for a second. Yes, Nicolas Cage had top billing in The Rock, but would you really consider him an action hero in it? My vote is NO. Stanley Goodspeed was not a door kicking, ass beating, line quipping action star, he was a brilliant chemical scientist with a fear of going into combat, and for damn good reason. The bad ass billings in the film go to Sean Connery and Michael Beihn, Goodspeed was just more of a shipwreck of a field agent stumbling his way through tense situations and needing Sean Connery to get him out of a bunch of bad places. Even when he totally gets a massive advantage by getting the drop on one of the Marines he’s able to land two whole solid blows before said Marine proceeds to swiftly kick his ass, once again getting saved by sheer luck when he pops the chemical vial into the guys’ mouth.

“Well what about Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol?” you might ask. Well, yeah Tom was kicking ass in that movie, but the film didn’t revolve around how much ass he could actually kick. The Mission Impossible franchise (and the first film in particular) never really focused on shooting or fighting, they revolved around a group of individuals being able to think around walls and solve seemingly impossible situations. Tom Cruise, while being the main character and team leader, never really felt like the action star of the film, he was part of a larger story. At the end of the fourth film each member of the team had a critical task to accomplish, and I thought it did a great job showing how each of these players was just as important as, if not more so than, Ethan Hunt.

I can also buy the idea of Cruise in this role for one big reason which I discussed earlier, by using practical effects and real stunts the film creates a scene that Cruise HAD to physically participate in himself. There is a huge difference between Tom Cruise scaling a massive skyscraper in a real wide angle shot, and Shia Labeouf squaring off one on one with a giant killer cartoon robot.

Now as I just demonstrated, I don’t mind having a loser in an action movie, but I DO mind when you have said loser issuing orders to soldiers, bossing around giant robots, and magically kicking ass without any explanation.

IV-Camerawork, the Ancient Lost Art of Giving a S**t-In the golden age of action films talented directors such as James Cameron, Sam Raimi, Sylvester Stallone, Michael Bay, James McTiernan, Don Simpson, and yes… even Michael bay needed something to differentiate themselves from the countless other action films out on the market. These directors were forced to care about their work in order to differentiate themselves from the pack, so they took painstaking steps to create a film that made them stand out from the competition. They did so by either exhibiting and utilizing outstanding camerawork, or flat out creating entirely new methods of camerawork.

Camerawork is the tactical use of film cameras to create a scene that conveys a distinct style or emotion to the viewer. While films nowadays might be mostly lost with modern Hollywood directors there was a time that this was one of the most crucial components of a film, especially action films. Creative and unique camerawork can turn a generic action schlock picture into a standout entertaining film, and believe it or not one of the most creative and original pioneers of action camerawork was none other than Michael Bay himself.

Now faithful readers of this blog will remember that my criticisms towards Mr. Bay have been severe to say the least, but despite my opinions of the man I have never hesitated to state that I believe him to be one of the finest cinematographers to come out of Hollywood in the last twenty-five years. His use of wide-angle shots, Dutch angles, and slow motion was a breath of fresh air in the 90s, and even stands up to the best of action films by todays’ standards. I mean the man was even utilizing an antiquated form of the “bullet time” camera trick years before The Matrix made it so damn popular! The man was a genius of film.

So what the hell happened to this guy? In a word… complacency and misconceptions. Just like how George Lucas became a lazy fat turd who directed an entire trilogy of films by filming some actors in front of a blue screen and then digitally creating entire scenes, Michael Bay has traded his legitimate directing chops in favor of creating dazzling cartoon action scenes with no real feeling to them. Unlike Lucas however, at least Bay actually cares about the films he creates, he just thinks that creating mind numbing action scenes is what audiences want over things like story, tension, and characters. It’s just sad to see a man with so much talent utterly fail at creating the most simple of things these days, creating an emotional connection with a film. I mean, look at the opening to The Rock and tell me this isn’t better than everything in all of his recent films combined.





Now what does all of this have to do with my opinion of MI: GP? Well if you haven’t figured it out by now I loved it, but not just because of all of its’ obvious strengths. Despite its’ breathtaking stunts, outstanding story, excellent cast, brilliant direction, and tense set pieces, this film really clicked with me because it reminded me of classic action films that used special effects as a supplement, not a means, and in that regard there is no greater example than a film like the Rock. In fact, once upon a time, none other than George Lucas himself said in a behind the scenes Star Wars special feature “Special effects are a tool, a means of telling a story, and a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing”. Downplaying special effects and focusing on the movie structure itself is an outstanding example of how these days the real key to making good action films is seriously good old fashioned live filming and stunt work, which sadly seems lost on most directors in Hollywood these days.

So why the comparison between MI: GP and The Rock? Well call me crazy, but it felt like with this film director Brad Bird was trying to create a film that was a throwback to the great action films of the 90s. This isn’t much of a stretch for Bird, I mean after all, this is the same guy who directed The Incredibles, which was a throwback to the classic 1960s James Bond spy movies and superhero comics. However you compare it though, the film is flat out excellent, and even though I may not agree with everyone who says it is the best film in the series (THAT award belongs to Mission Impossible III) I definitely hold it in the highest regards for action movie standards, which makes it look like Casablanca by the standards of today’s action film standards.

Creating a good and entertaining action film seems to be a vanishing trend in Hollywood, so when a film like MI: GP hits the mark so well and does so good in the box office it gives me hope that maybe we aren’t doomed to Transformers films for the rest of our lives. Supporting great action films like this is the key to making directors care about the quality of their films once again.

The Rock-8 out of 10

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol-9 out of 10







Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Ten years ago acclaimed actor Johny Depp decided to completely do away with the entire pirate cliché and put his own personal spin on a classic archetype.  Channeling Keith Richards and Pepe Le’ Pue he created legendary pirate Captain Jack Sparrow, a character so unique and so interesting that it turned an overused stereotype into a classic movie character and has become one of the most influential (if not one of the most important) characters in the history of film. Although the two sequels may have floundered compared to the genre-bending first film they did contain several key moments and scenes that were flat out brilliant, but none of them could compare to Depp’s ingenious interpretation of Captain Jack. So… does Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides stack up to the original film, or flounder like the disappointing sequels?

I hate to say it, but it doesn’t even compare to the lame sequels. Despite a talented cast, director and writer the film comes off as being over-produced, underwhelming, and hastily written. Johny Depp and Geoffrey Rush can only do so much with this script, and while they do manage to drive the plot forward to the best of their abilities even they can’t make this noisy mess of a story work. How could they screw this up so badly? Where do we begin on our doomed journey to the Fountain of Youth?

The biggest and most glaring problem with the film is tension, or should I say, the absolute lack of tension throughout the entire freaking movie. Nothing is at stake during this adventure and nothing is presented to the audience to make us care about the overall outcome of the events We are treated to beautiful scenery and amazing visuals, but without anything to drive the plot forward or any consequences to make us care about the journey it is nothing but a two hour photo session. Creating stakes isn’t hard to do, in fact it’s so easy that it’s almost like an equation in a film with a simple line of dialogue such as “If we don’t ___________, then ___________ is going to __________”. A story without tension is one of the biggest travesties you could commit when writing an adventure story, because without any tension surrounding the overall outcome of a struggle even the most brilliant set pieces and action scenes amount to nothing at all because quite simply… there are no stakes.

Now I’d like to compare the absolute lack of stakes in this film to my favorite all time episode of Doctor Who entitled “Let’s Kill Hitler”. The episode revolves around the Doctor trying to not only rescue Rory and Amy from a renegade sentient robot, but also trying to redeem River Song and convert her from a hired killer into the strong, independent hero she would eventually become. As if this isn’t already enough for one person to deal with, add to this dilemma the fact that the Doctor has been poisoned, and he only has a limited amount of time before he dies in the middle of his desperate mission. The entire episode is so chock full of beautiful and meaningful moments of discovery from each character that entire character arcs could be better explored in this one episode than most epic film franchises have in an entire trilogy. But… the most important thing about this episode in relation to this article is that within fifteen minutes this episode effectively establishes incredibly crucial stakes, and several of them.

1.      If the Doctor dies before getting River to save them, then Rory and Amy will die.

2.      If Rory and Amy can’t get the council to redact their judgment, River will die.

3.      If River doesn’t realize the error of her ways, the Doctor will die.

These conflicts help make all of the desperate situations in the show that much more desperate as the time ticks away. The Doctor is slowly dying an agonizing death,  River is facing disillusionment and regret at the choices she has made during her lifetime, and Amy and Rory are fighting off a swarm of killer robots while trying to convince a judicial council that they have made the wrong decision about the judgment they have passed. The high stakes of this episode transform every single act in the episode into a life or death moment, I mean the Doctor can barely crawl to the Tardis in some scenes as he attempts to save Amy and Rory, and he realizes that if he fails to convince River to renounce her ways then Amy and Rory are as good as dead.

Now sure, for a show that deals with potentially universe destroying problems on a weekly basis the potential loss of four lives aren’t exactly devastating, but the point is that stakes are simple to incorporate into any setting in a story. In Doctor Who they were able to establish these stakes simply, organically, and quickly without resorting to a clichéd doomsday line like “If we don’t ______ within the next _______, it’ll be the end of the world as we know it!”. And even though this line may be clichéd I have no problem with something THAT simple in a film compared to the nothingness of POTC: OST. Pretty much any film you can think of that had a lot of tension (which is a NECESSITY in an action film) had something at stake. Indy and friends in Raiders of the Lost Ark were chasing the Ark because if the Third Reich found out how to use its’ power they would become invincible, if Vader was victorious in Empire Strikes Back then the Rebellion would have lost its’ final hope in defeating the Empire, if Theo didn’t get the baby to The Human Project in Children of Men then the world would never figure out how to cure the worldwide sterilization, and if Andy didn’t get out of Shawshank then the warden would get away with murder, embezzling, and extortion.

Now using the information you just read, what were the stakes in Pirates of the Caribbean? What would have happened to any of the characters, ANY of them, if they had not succeeded in their crusade? Blackbeard wasn’t dying of old age, Angelica wasn’t dying of scurvy, Jack Sparrow wasn’t dying of being way too awesome, no one had anything to lose if they hadn’t found the fountain. In fact there’s one scene where the Spanish destroy the fountain for no apparent reason and everyone just sort of stands around for a few minutes with a “Gee, now what do we do?” look on their faces. Yeah, sure, some stuff happens very late in the film which makes the fountain much more important to some wounded characters, but the point is that these dummies left to find it knowing that:

1.      They were in fine health and not mortally ill

2.      The fountain only extended life proportionally, it didn’t make you live forever

3.      The journey to the fountain was very dangerous and a lot of people would probably be killed

A lack of stakes is such a travesty against a story that this alone would have been enough for me to turn people off from seeing it, but sadly this is not the only problem. There are a lot of scenes just sort of shoved into this movie that don’t feel like they belong, and to make it worse these scenes assault the eyes and ears with overly produced scenes and overly loud action pieces. This tactic of filming action scenes happened non-stop in the second and third movie, but it wasn’t as irritating in those films because they primarily dealt with legends of the sea with every action scene. Whenever there was action happening on screen there was usually a legend like Davy Jones, tribal rituals, shipwreck graveyards, the Charybdis, Aztec gold, and mythical monsters like the Kraken attached to the action scene to give it levity and that sort of “Legends of the Sea” feel to it. In this film there is one action scene involving mermaids which is kind of mediocre, but for the most part there isn’t any levity or meaning to these over the top action scenes since there is never really anything hanging in the balance, and at this point it just seems really, really old hat.

This is really a shame since there are quite a few things in the film that really worked quite well for the film, most notably (no surprise here) Johny Depp reprising his role as Captain Jack Sparrow. Depp has never shied from the idea of proclaiming Jack to be his personal favorite of all his roles, and his reverence and love for the role is in full view here. He returns as Jack with a sort of childlike glee and passion that makes this a standout role even for someone with a film history as distinguished as his. On the flip side of this joyful turn in is the equally stellar Geoffrey Rush returning as Captain Hector Barbosa, brining an angry and dark but spirited portrayal to the table. The two of them have always had an outstanding chemistry between them that borders on divine, a sort of oil and vinegar chemistry, and they play off of each other as well and believably as bickering siblings.

A talented supporting cast helps bring life to the characters of the film (the one bright spot of the movie), but sadly the real waste of the movie is the always amazing (and one of my favorite actors) Ian McShane as Blackbeard. It’s not that he’s bad, in fact quite the opposite, he is so freaking good in his role (channeling all of his Deadwood Al Swearingen angry greatness) that I couldn’t wait to see him on screen as soon as he walked off. He exudes such a quiet menace and dismissive attitude towards everything around his that I was riveted to my seat. In every scene his pure, unchecked disdain towards every single person around him is palpable, as if every person around him is nothing but a waste of his time. It could almost be confused as boredom, but the brilliant hatred he seeps off of himself in each scene is so cool that I always wonder why he isn’t in every movie ever made.

And sadly, that’s the problem he has in this film, lack of influence. The first time he walks out on deck and shows what he’s capable of is awesome, but after that he’s barely in the movie! When he does have a scene it typically consists of him speaking a handful of lines, exits screen left, and then we are McShane-less again for about ten or fifteen minutes. How are we supposed to fear and hate a protagonist who barely has any screen time? It’s kind of hard to fear a villain when all of his coolest stories are actually told to us by other characters instead of shown to us.

There are a bunch of other things wrong with film, but they don’t measure up to the problems I already listed. Weak, if not just weird, writing, bad cinematography, poor, uneven pacing, countless anachronisms (flamethrowers for God’s sake?), and breaking my suspension of belief are some of chief complaints. Now what do I mean by “breaking my suspension of belief”? Pretty much exactly what it sounds like. Whenever I watch a movie I always slip into a mode where I realize I’m watching a movie, so I should just check my knowledge of physics, luck, and human strength at the door, but at a couple of points in the movie this film just went so far that it surpassed suspension of belief and just plain didn’t make sense.

For example, I watch a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark and I can get behind the idea of Indy getting dragged behind a car, or wrapping his whip around a branch and swinging from it, because they are things the body is capable of. Sure they might be things that you could only do once in a blue moon (like making your whip do that), or things that only a person in peak physical condition can do (Like surviving some of those stunts), but they are possible under the right circumstances. Furthermore, after watching Indy getting dragged for like half a mile behind that supply truck we are treated to a scene of Indy in bed, writhing in pain, tending his wounds, and so tired that he even falls asleep despite the prospect of sex. We see the consequences of those actions, and even elaborate, impossible events seem much more possible with these scenes.

On the other hand, Pirates of the Caribbean characters seemingly do the impossible without any regards to physical limits or physics in general. At one point Jack stands on top a coconut tree and pulls a second tree back with a rope to a forty-five degree angle using nothing but his arms. There’s no reason, no explanation for how a hundred and sixty pound average guy can do this, no lead up, he just does the impossible without the faintest of reasons. Even stranger is the fact that even if you were bitten by a radioactive spider and you somehow could do that, he’s standing on top of another tree as he does this without being flung from it like a slingshot. There’s no reason this should happen, and it happens a lot in this film. There’s a swordfight on a rocking ship teetering over the edge of a cliff, and whenever one side weighs more it shifts to that side. This is an interesting and semi-original idea for an action scene, but during the whole fight the angles they are moving at and the weight distribution of the ship are all wrong! All the treasure on the ship shifts to the side going over the edge, but then Jack throws a book to the other side and suddenly everything is even again? I know it’s a small complaint and I know it’s just a movie, but these scenes really jar me out of the film.

It’s just sad to see the slow spin down the toilet bowl of a film franchise that started out as something so original and so promising. Although sporting a promising premise, a talented cast, and a beautiful locale, it still appears that this franchise has finally… run aground (groan).

5 out of 10