The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

It's obvious Disney wants to turn The Sorcerer's Apprentice into their next Pirates of the Caribbean or at least the next National Treasure, but I don't think that's going to work. I've been trying to pinpoint why. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is no Pirates, but surely Nicholas Cage and director Jon Turtletaub could create another Treasure, right?

Bear in mind that I realize that this is Disney we're talking about here, but I think the problem is that there are no stakes. The Chosen One is a story that's been done to death, but, as far as magic goes, the Chosen One is owned by Harry Potter at this point in the cultural lexicon. Those books, and by consequence the movies, grew with their readers: they got progressively darker as Harry (and the reader) got older. So to drop us into a story where the Boy Wizard Sorcerer is 20 and to at no point give us any reason to think his life might be imperiled by the ones who want him dead is a misstep. Sure, Max (Alfred Molina) keeps saying that he's going to kill Dave (Jay Baruchel), but, when presented with a prime opportunity, he doesn't even try! Doesn't even knock him unconscious. Pull it together, villains.

And while we're talking villains, can someone please explain to me the value in ending the world? Remember way back in the glorious second season of Buffy, when Spike allied with Buffy over Angelus mostly to get Dru back but partly because he didn't see the appeal of ending the world anyway? I always think of that little speech ("like Happy Meals with legs") whenever villains want to end the world in movies and on TV because then you die, too, moron. Unless that's the point, in which case kill yourself and save us the trouble. Selfish. Anyway, it's later clarified that the world "as we know it" will end, which is another thing entirely. I can see why you'd want to do something about that.

But I digress. So here are these characters, locked in mortal combat for over a millennium, waiting to find the Prime Merlinian, so they can release Morgana Le Fey (bully for Max), so Dave can kill her (bully for Balthazar (Cage)). Even when your outcome is a foregone conclusion, you can still build some suspense. But all the suspense I felt was of the tying the plot elements together variety: "I wonder how the Tesla coils will fit into this." "Oh, there we go." Did I wonder if Dave would accept his destiny and live up to his potential? Of course not. And not just 'cause it was a movie. Because it was a deliberately lighthearted movie. I've seen Baruchel in some dark places before (Just Buried), so I'm sure he can bring it. The movie didn't want to go there, so none of the actors did either.

That's not so bad, I suppose. It certainly means a less hammy Cage than you might expect. If anything, he and Molina are having a helluva time being just hammy enough. Despite the lack of pathos, Baruchel is still charming and a comic find. Plus you've got Toby Kebbell up in there (between this and Prince of Persia, I'm starting to wonder if he's got a three picture deal at Disney) poking hilarious fun at Criss Angel (just like that great episode of Supernatural!), so it's a good time. A fluffy, frothy, fitfully fun good time.

I don't know. It's like the Fantasia sequence: it feels like it was just dropped in the middle with no thought about how to properly integrate it into the story. It doesn't suit the character (a guy who has little confidence in his magic suddenly opts for a big spell?), and it involves a comical amount of mops and brooms (didn't they replicate themselves in the original? Okay, after Mickey splintered the first broom). Instead of wondering how this will end or laughing at the dedicated cleaning crew, I was baffled by the sheer abundance of mops and brooms. Why would an unauthorized lab space in an abandoned subway roundabout have all these cleaning supplies? Did Dave put them there? See?! These are the wrong things to be thinking about. But there's no tension or suspense to stop my mind from spinning. C+

Also, maybe screenwriters and the world and I should have a little talk about how we could have tweaked the Becky (Teresa Palmer) plotline a little so it came across as more of a "what if?" thing instead of a creepy, weird thing. Not that it's played it that way, but that's what you would think if some dude thought of a grade school crush as the One That Got Away. Also, why is Becky a freshman? SEE?!

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Jake Gyllenhaal cuts a strange action figure. No one can argue with that physique, and the chest hair is a nice touch. Even the hair, though not exactly the most flattering, is period acceptable. But, man, when the camera closes in on those puppy eyes, you're in another movie.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a near perfect Disney summer blockbuster: lots of action, lots of good-looking people, lots of fun. It's also overstuffed and overlong, but, hey, that worked for Pirates, right? DP John Seale was obviously inspired by video games for much of his composition, particularly shots of Dastan (Gyllenhaal) diving from various heights and running across Persia's rooftops (parkour before it had a name).

The story itself feels like a mash up of Moses, Aladdin, and The Fugitive: an orphaned street kid is adopted by the king and raised as a prince. Later, framed for murder, he goes on the run with a beautiful princess (Gemma Arterton), who seeks to steal and return the dagger the prince claimed in battle to its sacred temple before it falls into the wrong hands. The dagger, you see, is a one-minute time machine. So they run all over Asia at incredible speed (seriously), and Alfred Molina shows up just for the love of ostriches.

It's all very silly, but it's summer. As long as the guys are hot and the story doesn't make us beat our heads against our seats at the incoherence of it all, why complain? Putting a ringer like Gyllenhaal in the lead role is just icing: the emotional moments ring true even when they shouldn't, so holding hands is enough to make hearts flutter. Aw. If only they have cast someone worthy as his romantic interest. Arterton really needs to learn to lighten up. B-

Pirate Radio (2009)

Pirate Radio's trailer would like to deceive you into thinking that it's about a ragtag crew of radio rockers and The Man (Kenneth Branagh, having the most fun I've possibly ever seen him have) trying to bring them down. It is about that, don't worry, but what the trailer fails to inform you is that it's also about Carl (Tom Sturridge), an adorable little moppet who gets kicked out of school, so his mom (Emma Thompson, briefly and fantastically) sends him to his godfather (Bill Nighy, at his most charismatic when he's at his most languid), who just so happens to own and operate a pirate radio ship. So in addition to pirate radio shenanigans, there's also coming of age drama. It's kept to a minimum, and, like I said, Carl's an adorable moppet.

Writer-director Richard Curtis, who was also responsible for the adorable moppet and ragtag crew of Love Actually*, has a knack for gathering delightful British comedians (and one notable American) and letting them have at it. It's a good thing, too, as there's otherwise nothing striking in his direction or his script.

The notable American is, of course, Philip Seymour Hoffman. The Count is very similar to what I like to imagine Hoffman is like in real life (there are also similarities to his character in Almost Famous), and he's also responsible for the movie's only real emotional moment.

Pirate Radio the kind of movie that's exceedingly pleasant to watch, the kind that you put on when you're bored or in need of a little cheering up. There are worse things to be. C+

*I constantly want to put a comma between those words. What is that?

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Story: Will (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), and crew team up with Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) and Singapore pirate Captain Sao Feng (Chow-Yun Fat) to find the world's end and rescue Jack (Johnny Depp), so he can help put a stop to Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) and Davy Jones' (Bill Nighy) reign of terror.

Even though the pre-credits sequence aimed at "political" and ended up hitting "reminiscent of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves*" and even though The Hater has proclaimed the movie/franchise unbearable, I am here to tell you that it is the opposite of unbearable. This third installment is downright . . . tolerable! It's occasionally enjoyable! Sometimes good!

What? If you may recall, the second one was awful. Anything better than insufferable is an marked improvement.

*Which rocks, so they've got that going for them.

Mind you, the movie's far from perfect. The movie's really Elizabeth heavy. Listen, writers Ted Elliott and Ted Rossio, you cannot convince me that absolutely everyone is hot for Knightley. She's got no shape to her. Her hair was slightly better this time around (bad dye job, better styling), but her unflattering lipstick remained in place. Also, still not much going on in the acting department for this one. Her big rousing speech? Had me rolling my eyes. Her credulity straining interest in Jack (still, again, some more)? Impossible. It's the same problem every time: Knightley over-reaches. The best way to approach most of her scenes would be with subtlety and nuance, and she blows them nearly every time. It's odd because her scenes with Bloomers work really well (they have a sweet, understated chemistry), and her desire for adventure comes across clearly. Putting the focus on her only emphasizes how under-prepared Knightley is to carry the bulk of the movie.

Will and Elizabeth are apparently not talking when the movies opens, although the first scene with both confirms their love for and fidelity to one another. Elizabeth is in some danger or vaguely sexually threatened? Cut to Will clenching. Elizabeth does something smart/clever/inspirational? Cut to Will looking all kinds of turned on. Hee. Bloomers gives a great reaction shot. Yes, young Bloomers remains one of the greatest enigmas Elfin April has ever faced. When he's silent, when it's simple, Bloomers hits the mark. Anything more complex, and he tends to veer off course. It makes him the perfect candidate for these sort of movies, actually, as they run straight. Maybe typecasting wouldn't be such a shame for him after all.

As for Depp, what's left to be said? He's fey, and we all love it. His hair was still more dready and less braidy, but I can live with that so long as I can watch that scene with Keith Richards as Captain Teague over and over again. Elliott and Rossio, however, need to cool it a bit with their love of Jack. You'll see what I mean.

Also: Cutler is totally hot for Jack (admit it, you saw it, too). Rush appears to be having a ball. Norrington got boring again after putting back on the powdered wig. The one-eyed man and his scraggly haired companion finally get names. Stellan Skarsgård steals every scene he's in, breaking hearts along the way. This FAQ makes the post-final-credits sequence confusing.

In all my writing on the subject, I have failed to mention Hans Zimmer's delightful score. It's catchy in a way that you don't mind having in your head for days, allowing you to recall the best parts of the high seas adventure and dump the rest.

Despite the fact that it's too long and way too heavy on elements and sub-plots best left to the fishes, it's still a far more palatable entry than the second. If it were to end here, I think it's something we could all look back on and smile. Not a bad way to lose an afternoon. B+

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

I went to see PotC: At World's End yesterday, but I don't want to write about it until I get my thoughts about the middle child down. It's RE-view time.

The movie remains long and largely boring, but it works better if you break it up into chunks, like I did. A finger on the fast-forward button would also do the trick. Mostly, I'd skip a lot of the stuff on the island, a lot of stuff with Elizabeth, and some of the Cutler/Governor Swann stuff. I love Tom Hollander in the role, but so much of what he does is just set-up for the next movie. You'd do just as well to wait and catch up then.

As for the island stuff, it's kind of funny the first time around, but it loses it's charm on subsequent viewings, and it feels more like filler than genuine dramatic tension (will they save Jack? Gee, I don't know!)

Oh, Elizabeth. You know, when it came to the first movie, Bend it like Beckham, and Love Actually, I would I have said that I liked Knightley alright. She's not spectacular, but she's serviceable when she's not over-reaching. Plus, as I have long said, she's got a pretty face. But here? Why the focus on Elizabeth? She's childish a lot of the time, and her "attraction" to Jack is possibly the most unbelievable part of the entire movie (of the many I could choose). Her signature line, "Oh, Jack," with a little sigh at the end? Plays like he's her screw-up older brother. If it's supposed to be a more carnal interest, it doesn't show.

To be honest, I don't buy the attraction going either way. Depp can play anything at any time in any way and make me a believer, but the sub-plot groans under the weight of the tacked-on tension. It's upsetting but expected that Jack trade Will's life for his own. But try to steal his lady? Never. Jack knows he could never come back from that. Mind you, all of this speculating is possible because Depp plays the most fully fleshed character on the screen at any given point.

No matter which chunk I was watching, I was consistently impressed with Will's character development. No, seriously. Will is the central character, the tie that binds the mainland lives of Elizabeth, the Governor, and Norrington (Davenport is so foxy when he's a rogue) to the sea-faring world of the pirates, and the movies' moral centre. When he lights that sword on fire? I found myself thinking, "Will's ingenious." During that amazing, best set piece of the movie, water wheel fight? I hoped Will would come out on top. Bloomers bugs in a lot of ways a lot of the time, but here? He's quick on his feet, and I can get behind that.

It's still too long, too exposition-y, too reliant on call backs instead of new material, but it didn't turn me off of going to see the final (?) installment. That's saying something. Not a lot, but something. I'm sticking with my original grade. C+

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Story: On their wedding day, Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) are arrested for their parts in Capitan Jack Sparrow's (Johnny Depp) escape. Will makes a deal Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) : a pardon for Jack's compass. Elizabeth and Will, however, end up part of Jack's scheme to cheat Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) out of the 100 years service Jack owes Jones.

I don't know how I am going to write this post without giving at least one thing away, so I think you are just going to have to accept that. Work with it. Frankly, I'm doing you a favour.

Way, way back in 2003, when Melanie, Kelsa, and I hit the theatre to check out Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl on a whim, it was great. Nothing but fun was had. As a result, I was pleased when I heard a trilogy was in the works.

Unlike what 2004 would like us to believe, sequels don't match what came first. They tend to blow, and this outing was no exception.

To be honest, I don't see the point of a sequel. Profit-wise, it makes sense. The first proved that pirates were no longer box office Kryptonite (heh), provided some youngsters with star turns, and earned Johnny Depp his first Oscar nomination. Why not do it again?

But story-wise, everything was wrapped up in the first outing: the curse was reversed, Jack got his boat back, Will got Elizabeth. There was nothing else to tell. So, the team behind the first movie would have to come up with an entirely new problem for our heroes and heroine. Additionally, they needed to stretch the new situation over two movies in order to complete the trilogy. It sounds hard, but it's not nearly as difficult as Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (co-writers) would have you believe.

For one, make sense. Obviously an undead crew cursed by Aztec gold or a squid-man that rules the sea requires a certain suspension of disbelief. I get that. My favourite TV show, pretty much ever? Was about a petite blonde that hunted vampires. Trust me, I get suspension of disbelief. But when you go the fantasy route, you still have to stick with the rules that you invented for your world. I found the Bootstrap Bill (Stellan Skarsgard) stuff hard to follow the first time around (and I just watched it for the second time a week ago today as a refresher for yesterday), and this movie made it even worse. I mean, you know, nice for Will to get to finally meet his dad and all that, but what?

Also, am I really supposed to believe that everything we went through "six months ago" didn't occur to firmly convince me of Will and Elizabeth's love and loyalty to one another? Now I'm to buy the idea that Elizabeth might want Jack instead? My eye! For reasons beyond all human understanding, Knightley cannot manage to act attracted to Depp for even a split second. How hard could that possibly be? I thought she was more likely to jump Norrington (Jack Davenport, who is back and a fox) at any given moment than have a go with Jack. And you know what Knightley's performance did suggest? That Elizabeth loves Will. So why all the hoopla? Why the tacked-on drama? Why didn't anyone hit her in the face this time around?

Speaking of Knightley and her face, it's no secret that I am not her number one fan. Something I have acknowledged for years, however, is the fact that she has a beautiful face. No, really, I can't stand her, but those are some pretty cheekbones. I know they had the Domino hair to work with, but I think the hair and make-up people must absolutely hate her. She looked terrible - the colour and cut of the hair was unflattering, the lip colour was all kinds of wrong, the eye make up looked like a seven year old had smeared it on with a melted crayon. First movie? Pretty. Second movie? Dog.

Speaking of a face like Knightley's, Bloomers's looked leaner this time around. No matter what those people at Slate or The Tyee have to say, these movies are ones in which I genuinely like Bloomers -- he makes a good sidekick, a good devoted, idealistic young lover, and a good 17th (guessing) century pirate/blacksmith. Seriously, these styles suit him. And -- for those who want to see this sort of thing -- the shirt even comes off at one point. You're welcome.

I'm not going to go into how good Depp consistently is in this role. It's like he was born to play a perpetually drunk, morally ambiguous fortune hunter. Although, one thing, why was his hair more dread-y this time around? They couldn't find the wig or extensions or whatever from last time?

Why did PotC:TCotBP work? It was intelligent, funny, a dash scary, tightly paced, and, above all, it kept the action moving. Exposition is a necessary evil, but it doesn't have to feel like pulling teeth. This movie was a million years long, boring for spans of eons, only funny when it made callbacks to the original, and avoided sense like the plague. And skeletons are scarier than anthropomorphic fish with bizarre accents. All in all, it had a bad case of The Matrix Reloaded, a sequel so awful that I didn't bother with the third installment.

If you could cut out, oh, say, 60 of the 150 minutes, it might have been fun, greasing the wheels until the final movie in 2007. It's not that this movie is that all that bad - director Gore Verbinski has a great handle on action set pieces and slapstick set up. It's just that it so thoroughly undoes the good work of the first that it makes you hate it. C+

Oh, what the hell: Why is Barbossa back at the end? WHYYYYY?! I hate that ending. HATE. It basically complete re-writes the first movie, and, if he doesn't tell us what's up in the first 15 minutes of the third movie, I am going to kick some ass.

And, while we're here, why is the monkey immortal? See?! See what I mean with the no sense and the general unravelling of the first plot?

Finally Figured it Out: A rumination on a certain possibly transgendered harbinger of Armageddon

Emily sent me this article from Slate's Summer Movie Week (an idea which excites me to no end). I immediately fired back that I already read the same thing in The Tyee two years ago.

I can't say I disagree with either one, which basically state, as Chris Rock did at the 2005 Oscars, "If you can't get Russell Crowe, just don't make your stupid epic." Don't get Brad Pitt or Colin Ferrel or, for the love of peace, Orlando Bloom. I'll give Clive Owen a pass because I don't blame him for that mild disaster, and I stand by my belief that Bloomers was at least serviceable as Paris, Eric Bana rocked the hizzouse as Hector, and Gerard Butler is a jack of all trades. It has something to do with a certain fleshy masculinity that allows these actors to transcend time and space.

It was also bizarre that the common link in these articles was Bloomers, as I had been thinking of him recently.* I was having yet another conversation with myself along the lines of, "Have I been him or her an unfairly bum rap?" See, I have been listening to Elton John's "My Father's Gun" a lot lately, which put me in mind of that scene in Elizabethtown where all his relatives are standing around trying to tell Drew what a great man his father was and how much they are going to miss him, and all Drew is doing is standing over his father's coffin, changing the angle of his head, and puzzling out what the look on his father's face is supposed to be. When he finally hits upon it, "whimsical," he sort of lets out this sigh of bittersweet relief. It's well done, to be honest. There's a lot in that movie that isn't nearly as well done (I could begin and end my whole case by asking why Claire was interested in Drew to begin with), but that part is nice.

And that's my problem with Bloomers. Most of the time he's just plain bad, all miscast and adolescent and scant, but sometimes, just sometimes, he's pretty good. So I thought back to when I liked him, if at all, and the answer was Pirates of the Caribbean. In a movie where I detest 2/3 of the stars, it's a wonder that I like it so much. Perhaps Depp is just so good that he rubs wonderfulness off on everyone else, but I think it's a little more than that. I think the problem with Bloomers is that, right now, he's Heath Ledger circa 2001.

Ledger just kind of appeared in 10 Things I Hate About You and magically elevated the movie from flash-in-the-pan to something more lasting. The other stars of that minor hit? David Krumholtz has got his TV show, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is carving out a nice indie scene It-Boy career, and the rest of them stagnated or disappeared outright. But, boy, were people all over Ledger. Soon he was Mel Gibson's tragically heroic son, and then - poof! - a leading man in his own right. Not just leading, in fact, since the whole poster was his face. And that movie went? Nowhere. Because it blew.

In the very same year, he also had a very affecting turn as Billy Bob Thornton's suicidal son, but he was in the movie for maybe twenty minutes, and everyone else was busy focusing on other things.

So Ledger's career goes down the crapper pretty much the instant it starts, and, to be honest with you, I thought that was the end of him. But then Ang Lee decided gay cowboys and New Yorker short stories would translate well to film, and the rest of that story is bound to go down in film history.

And that's the problem with Bloomers, too, I think. Or, rather, that's Bloomers' problem. He's doing this leading man stuff because people think he should be, but he shouldn't. He's just not leading man material. And maybe he could be, but right now he's young and inexperienced and it shows. And maybe, just maybe, if he sort of steps back and gives it time, he could stumble into his very own Brokeback.

Or he could blow even worse than he already does. Too early to tell.

But, yes, Slate and The Tyee, no one is Russell Crowe. Perhaps you should give another guy a chance before you get too caught up in your self-congratulatory criticism, though.

*Yes, for the record, I sit around thinking about movie stars and their careers. Piss off. You do it, too.

Pump Up the Volume (1990)

Plot: Mark (Christian Slater) run a pirate radio station from his basement for his own amusement. He discovers that everyone is listening to what he has to say, and, more importantly, they are taking him seriously. All this attentions winds his DJ persona, Hard Harry, in deeper and deeper trouble as the teens of his small town start to act based on his suggestions.

Ha- this movie makes me think of two things.
1) Remember your Christian Slater phase? I make that statement very generally because everyone had one. He was so cute, and passionate, and a little bit shy, yet highly sexual, and ridden (or so it seemed) with genuine angst. It was hard not to fall for him.
2) Allan Moyle is just the best. He makes the best disillusioned teen movies I have ever seen. He is also a contender for best Canadian director, although I understand his practices to be somewhat suspect.

Honestly, who doesn't like this movie? Like all Moyle's movies, he manages to sneak in these occasionally subtle dissenting views into what appears to be a teen sex comedy. Tricky, that's what this movie can be.

Also, possibly the most preachy of his films, but I think I'll let it slide in exchange for the presentation he gives us. He just knows how to have fun. He's like a girl that way.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more Moyle seems to me like the unconventional version of Cameron Crowe. I wonder if what I just said would be considered sacrilege.

I'm going to have to give props to the soundtrack, mostly for including Leonard Cohen.

I'm really not doing this movie justice. You're just going to have to see it for yourself. It's hilarious and smart and sad and special.

And real, although it is about some rather odd activities. But the approach to them is as real as it gets.