REVIEW: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

   "It's a pirate's life", says you.  "Ay, it's a pirate's life.  Savvy?", says you again.  "Yep, It sure is a pirate's life", says you yet again.  "Stop trying to make fetch happen", says I.

   Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is the fifth installment in the Disney franchise inspired by the theme park ride.  Johnny Depp returns to his iconic role as Captain Jack Sparrow; franchise veterans Geoffrey Rush, Kevin R. McNally, Orlando Bloom, and (briefly) Keira Knightley return as well, and they are joined by newcomers Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelario, and David Wenham.   They come together in a movie which could, by rights, be called "Stale Writers Tell No Tales".  You may ask yourself, does it hold up to the earlier entries in the series?  And I would respond that it is disinclined to acquiesce to your expectations.

    That means no.

    I saw this last night and have had to mull over my feelings on the film, which I concede primarily feature disappointment and irritation.  I enjoyed the first three films in the series immensely - a fun, swashbuckling trilogy with brilliant characters, gorgeous locations, incredible fight choreography, a sharp and quotable script, and some interesting thematic considerations lurking just below the surface, to rise occasionally in an explosive burst much like the prow of the Flying Dutchman.  While keeping up with the characters' shifting allegiances and motivations could be, at times, tricky, it was a thoroughly rich trilogy.  It was followed some years later by a lackluster, perfunctory sequel, which while not a bad movie in and of itself, lacked the panache of the first three (but did include Ian McShane, for which it got quite a lot of credit).  Pirates 5 is very much akin to the latter movie, and while it attempts to head back in the direction of the original movies thematically, it fails utterly at charm, wit, or excitement.

    Have you ever had a relative - maybe an old drunk uncle - who you see only at infrequent family functions, but who you just *know* is going to make the same stale, unfunny jokes and embarrassing comments, delighted in his own wit?  That's rather what Jack Sparrow has become.  Johnny Depp has incredible talent, but he's in that group of actors, Will Ferrell, for example, who think that whatever idea pops into their head must be golden  - and the movie indulges them.  These are actors who, in conjunction with a skilled director and when properly reined in, can create wildly entertaining and memorable performances - very much as Depp did in the first three movies, working with Gore Verbinski.  However, his acting in these last two movies, especially this most recent, is horribly off.  Jack was formerly a wily, canny operative whose goofy mannerisms and bizarre behavior masked a complex schemer.  Lately, though, he's become nothing but a tired, repetitive drunk.  The character lacks all of the spark that he once had, and as the central figure in the movie, he drags the film down, making it stale and boring.

"It is not neither proper nor suitable, it is neither adequate nor acceptable, it is, in obvious fact, an abomination"

   It's Depp's fault to a point, but the script and the direction are absolutely lackluster.  There are a few perfunctory elements that are vintage Pirates - but we've seen them all before.  Multiple times.  While 5 is a better movie than 4 in the sense that this time at least the principal characters have clear motivations, it's all mechanical.  The movie takes way too long to build certain threads up, and disposes of others with an annoying nonchalance.   The script is full of telegraphed jokes and trite dialogue that is remarkably bland...most of the lines could be delivered by any character in the movie, they're that unspecific.  Even the 'easy' elements of Pirates movies - brilliant swordfighting, energetic action scenes, and dazzling locations - are all largely dismissed.  The film's climactic sequence is admittedly well done, but you have to sit through two hours of underwhelming rerun to get to it.  It's just not fun.

  The movie has two main plot thrusts which converge (of course) without gelling.  Brenton Thwaites plays Henry Turner, the son of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, seeking to overturn the curse of the Flying Dutchman under which Will fell at the end of the third movie.  And while seeing Bloom, Knightley, and the Dutchman again is one of the best elements of the movie, it's really just the set-up for Henry's actions in the movie, as the main instigator of the plot.  The other main thrust is Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar, captain of a cursed ship of ghostly henchmen with a mad-on for Jack Sparrow...not that we haven't seen that particular angle before.  While the visuals on Salazar and his crew are undeniably impressive, there's a profound lack of explanation for much of what's going on.  For example, it's not made entirely clear *why* Salazar is cursed, and the how is rather vague as well.  The audience is just supposed to go with it, but since we've seen this sort of thing before, it simply becomes a recycled plot device - same idea, different flavor.

"Do you fear death?  No?  How about a certain lingering redundancy?"

  Bardem is always an interesting actor to watch, and Salazar is certainly distinctive visually, but there is so much more they could have done with him.  Previous antagonists - Barbossa, Davy Jones, Lord Beckett, and to a much lesser extent, Blackbeard, were nuanced characters that you couldn't help but like; they each had their own unique foibles and humor.  Salazar's more of a one-note character - a remarkable visual propelled by a great actor, and at points quite terrifying, but hampered by a weak script.

   The rest of the cast is hampered as well.  Henry starts out strong, and is very much the child of Will and Elizabeth, but in the second half of the movie his character is all but absorbed into the background, and he's there simply to fill the 'Will Turner role'.  Scodelario's character, a brainy astronomer, fares somewhat better; while much of her dialogue in the movie is repetitive (I lost track of how many "I'm not a witch" conversations she had to endure), she's at least grounded and her motives are clear and consistent.  She's probably the best-written of the new characters.  David Wenham plays a British officer out to hunt pirates, or anyone else he can, but he's an incredibly vague character - we learn very little about him, and frankly, I didn't even catch his character's name.  Norrington, he was not.

    Barbossa is one of the bright spots of the movie, especially in the second half as we learn more about his past than we have to date, but even he spends a lot of the film serving as little more than a vehicle for the plot to advance.  However, when he's good, he's very good.  On the other hand, McNally, who is the only other actor besides Depp and Rush to appear in all five films, is completely devoid of personality.  Instead of the gravely-voiced wise but superstitious veteran who could impart lengthy tales of lore, he's reduced here to a generic lackey.  Similarly, Angus Barnett and Giles New return as Mullroy and Murtog, but I have to think these roles were meant for Pintel and Ragetti, who do not return.   Paul McCartney also has a cameo early in the movie, but it's very much a riff on the appearances by Keith Richards in the two preceding films.  Who knew Beatles songs were around in the 18th century?

"So tell me - what's become of me franchise?"

   I really wanted to like this movie, but ultimately I find myself quite let down.  I know I'm judging it in comparison to the series as a whole, but even on its own merits it's a bland, lifeless film.  I will say that the resolution works very well, not only for this movie as an individual entry, but for the series on the whole.  There are specific character plots tied off nicely with some solid closure, even if some of it is bittersweet, but also a thematic wrap-up involving the MacGuffin of the piece (the Trident of Poseidon) which is also a rather brilliant way to conclude.    While I would argue that there was no need for a fourth or fifth Pirates movie, I can say with certainty that at this point that the franchise needs to stop.  As a concluding entry, this movie does at least serve that role, and offers a clear and satisfying ending.  But as the rest of the movie shows, especially when coupled with the fourth film, they have nowhere else to go, because they keep sailing the same waters.

  Please let Jack Sparrow sail off to his horizon, Disney.   The story is done.  It's not that world has gotten smaller.  It's that there's less in it.

FINAL RATING: 3 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

REVIEW: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Ooga-chaka ooga-chaka ooga-chaka ooga-chaka.....

    Now that earworm's firmly entrenched, let's talk movies.  Specifically, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the sequel to 2014's Marvel Cinematic Universe, about a group of spacefaring superheroic misfits.   The original movie was a surprise hit, with a colorful blend of memorable characters, great visuals, an eminently quotable script, a phenomenal soundtrack and a goofy charm that made for a refreshing addition to the summer blockbuster pantheon.   It was, of course, no great shock that there'd be a sequel, which has now arrived at your local megaplex.

     This latest addition bears "Vol. 2" as a cognomen, and it's apt, because the sequel is very much more of the same.  This is both good and bad; good in that it includes the same cast of likeable characters and humor - bad in that it feels very much like a formulaic retread.  Much of Vol. 2 feels as though director James Gunn and co. looked at the original, picked out bits that worked, and then did their best to get as many of those exact same bits into the sequel.  So while that does make for a consistent aesthetic, it means we end up with a film that lacks the sparkle of the original, and is thus somewhat bland.

    Dancing Baby Groot?  Check.  Goofy opening credits?  Check.  Heavy on the '70s/'80s soundtrack?  Check.  Banter Banter Banter?  Check.  Unnecessary love story?  Check.  Multiple cameos and post-credit scenes?  Check.    That's not to say that any/all of these elements are bad in and of themselves- but I can promise you that if you've seen the original, then the sequel is bound to be rather predictable. 

Ego Mania!

    I'm going to assume that you *have* seen the original movie, and are therefore familiar with the characters.    Whereas distribution of development was fairly well-balanced among the characters in the first go-round, the sequel is far more uneven.  Drax in particular gets shorted, reduced largely to a source of extremely rote humor, and of a few moments of repetitive 'deeper' dialogue that fall flat.  Gamora, for all that she is not lacking in screen time, is really there merely to fill role of the token female heroine - even a subplot with her sister doesn't really do much to deepen or build her character, and her personality gets no growth.

     On the other hand, Rocket and Yondu get much broader roles than either had in the original.   They're responsible for many of the stronger character beats, as well some genuinely hilarious bits that are far and away the best parts of the movie.   Nebula also gets a larger part this time around, but the filmmakers can't seem to decide what they want her to be, so her function in the movie is somewhat erratic.    Baby Groot has minimal bearing on the plot, and is mainly there to be adorable and silly.

I'd pay to watch a movie that's nothing but these three.

     As before, Star-Lord is the main focus of the film, with this entry providing more to do beyond being a swashbuckling wise-ass - though there is plenty in the way of buckling of swashes and wry comments.   Unfortunately, the movie continues to reinforce the idea of Star-Lord as a less brilliant Tony Stark in space.  Still, Chris Pratt holds his own, and his likability helps keep Star-Lord from coming across as insincere.  Plus, I never get tired of '80s-related humor...one shout-out in particular earned Vol. 2 a few bonus points from me.

     For new characters, we get a rather fun turn by Kurt Russell as Ego, Star-Lord's hitherto absent father, and Ayesha (Her/Kismet) as played by Elizabeth Debicki.   Ayesha's the means by which the plot of the movie gets going, and I suspect she and her gold-hued people will be popular in cosplay circles this year.  The Guardians also acquire Mantis, a character who in the source material is powerful, dangerous and enigmatic, but who is here played by actress Pom Klementieff as a rather disappointingly stereotypical geisha-esque servant.   Sylvester Stallone has a small but important role in the movie, which I won't spoil here, suffice to say that he - along with a few other notable cameos - offers a very, very cool nod to long-time comic fans, which may bear some fruit in the eventual Guardians vol. 3.

 

"For a golden girl knows when he's kissed her...it's the kiss. of. Death!"

     Speaking of spoilers - I have to be very careful how to say this so I don't ruin anything - but I want to address one element of this movie that I found to be a considerable improvement over most of the previous MCU entries.  One of the things Vol. 2 gets right is that it finally gives us a worthwhile villain.   Comic fans will likely know exactly what's coming, but for anyone not familiar with the source, it may be a surprise, so I won't get specific.  But as I've made no secret of my ongoing frustration with ill-defined, easily-beaten throwaway big bads that have no development or emotional depth, Vol. 2 gives us an exception to that trend, with a well-written character with clear motives, a defined agenda, with serious consequences for the hero and impact that while I wouldn't call it sympathetic exactly, is at least compelling.  Yes, it does delve into the typical "Mwahahahah I want to destroy everybody 'cuz reasons" plot, but at least the villain's arc lets them have a personality before that.  So that's progress.

    Another thing I have to mention, specifically in light of ongoing complaints with the MCU, is that Vol.2, much like the original, does not feel like a commercial for the rest of the Marvel movieverse.   It's almost entirely stand-alone in its own corner, with the exception of a clever little meta-cameo at two points in the film.   It allows the world to exist on its own merits, without the nudge-nudge-wink-wink-coming-soon of the most of the related Avengers movies.  That will go out the window with Infinity War, of course, but for now, it's nice to be unencumbered.   And no, outside of one reference, the Infinity Stones do not factor into Vol. 2.

 

Gardens of the Galaxy?

   If you liked the first Guardians, odds are good you'll like this one as well.  It's certainly entertaining...it's genuinely funny and the characters are engaging, and the special effects are of course phenomenal.   By nature of its existence, though, it's not novel, which was one of the biggest appeals of the first film, and so a significant portion of this movie feels rehashed or recycled.  It's rather like leftovers from a particularly good meal....it's all well and good, but you've had it before and you know what to expect, and it doesn't taste quite as fantastic the next day.

   There are five (5!) post-credits scenes, by the way, and they do imply some interesting directions for the already-announced Vol. 3, though we'll be seeing the Guardians crew next in 2018's Avengers: Infinity War.

FINAL RATING: 6 PAWS (OUT OF 10)