"At World's End"

When “Pirates of the Caribbean” was first announced as the next “ride-turned-movie” from Walt Disney Pictures, I was skeptical. I mean, this was the studio responsible for the “Country Bears Movie” and “The Haunted Mansion.” Could another film based on a thrill ride be any different from those failed attempts? To understand what was going on in the minds of the directors of Disney at the time, we must understand the studio politics at the time. Michael Eisner was the CEO and President of the Walt Disney Corporation, and he had fallen into that most dangerous of territory-the financial “suit” who fancied himself a creative executive. Eisner obviously forgot that even Walt needed Roy Disney to run the business side of the Disney empire! Slowly over the years, he had rid himself of many of the creative geniuses who at, at one time or another, worked for Disney (Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jon Lasseter, and Tim Burton included). He had refused to appoint a successor to Frank Wells (who had tragically and suddenly died in a helicopter accident the winter before the release of “The Lion King”) until giving the position to the woefully underqualified and unprepared Michael Ovitz. Near the end of his tenure at Disney, Eisner was responsible for 1) the firing of the creative executives responsible for “Lost,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Desperate Housewives,” 2) ABC passing on “Survivor” and “The Apprentice” in favor of airing “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” 4 times a week, 3) selling off the rights for “The Sixth Sense” in an effort to merely recoup the cost of production (thereby costing Disney hundreds of millions of dollars), and 4) favoring pet projects at the expense of the high concept projects that he could just not understand. This last problem was nothing less than amazing, as Eisner, Katzenberg, and Barry Diller had all been a part of the Paramount brain trust from the 1980s that introduced the concept of high concept, with films such as “Flashdance,” “Top Gun,” and “Beverly Hills Cop.” One of Eisner’s goto producing companies at that time was Simpson-Bruckheimer (which became Bruckheimer Pictures after the untimely overdose-death of Don Simpson in the mid ‘90s).

When “Pirates” went into production, Eisner envisioned a low budget pirate caper, but Jerry Bruckheimer recognized that this could be something much more. Armed with a screenplay by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, Bruckheimer proceeded to assemble his team of artisans, recruiting Gore Verbinski (director of “The Ring” and “The Mexican”), Hans Zimmer, and a cast consisting of newcomers (Kiera Knightley and Orlando Bloom-fresh off the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy) and, most importantly, Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Filming commenced, and the suits at Disney were up in arms about the elevating costs, the use of ILM as the special effects house, and. most notably, Depp’s characterization of Captain Jack. If Eisner had had his way, Depp would not have been Captain Jack and we would have been deprived of one of the great performances of the past decade. Luckily, Bruckheimer’s clout won the day. Depp got to keep his characterization (and his gold teeth and eyeliner) intact, and Verbinski was allowed to craft a swashbuckling fantasy action film where the story was central and not in service to the special effects. One must remember that the pirate film genre has been marked more by failures than by successes (“The Pirate Movie,” “The Island” (the Peter Benchley version from the 80s), and most notably, “Cutthroat Island”). Few were willing to give this film a chance, but the trailers played up the supernatural aspects of the story and brought the people to the theaters. Depp’s performance and the story kept the people in the theater once they were there. Word of mouth from the film spread, and Disney (which had already released Pixar’s “Finding Nemo” that summer), easily won 2003's summer box office crown with the one-two punch of “Pirates” and “Nemo.” Naturally, talk of a sequel started soon after.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first film, but the second film left me a little unsatisfied. The story was extremely confusing, and the main action sequence in “Dead Man’s Chest” was "the action scene that would never end." In preparing to write this entry, I revisited the first 2 films thanks to the wonders of Disney Blu-ray (the picture is SO clear…but I digress…). The first film was just as enjoyable as I remembered, and the second film (though less confusing than I remembered) still had that long and drawn out action sequence in it (where they are fighting on the rolling wheel). The main weakness of the second film (I thought at the time) was the absence of significant screen time for Depp’s Captain Jack. He was the star of the first film, and I did not really care for the secondary stories concerning Will Turner, Elizabeth, and Bootstrap Bill. Although I found the character of Davy Jones intriguing (due in no small part to the abilities of Bill Nighy, who I have admired since his role as Victor in the “Underworld” films) and I loved the development of Jack Davenport’s character Norrington, I felt that something was missing from the second film. I thought that it was a greater focus on Captain Jack. I was wrong. The thing that was missing from the second film returned in full force to the third film.

Let me segue at this point to speak about my movie going habits. For the most part, I enjoy seeing films by myself. I can usually control the time and place of the showing, and I never have to worry about coordinating schedules or any other such nonsense. Of course, I find that this has changed over the past few weeks. I saw “Spider-Man” with my friend Jeff, and I saw “Shrek the Third” with a large group of people from DePaul. Prior to these experiences, I had always thought that the movie going experience was best enjoyed by myself, but I was wrong. It is fun to go to movies with others; though I will still see the occasional films by myself (especially the independent ones), I think that having a movie going buddy will be fun. This summer, it looks like my friend and fellow blogger Daisy Duke (from www.legallyblondeambition.blogspot.com) will be my movie going buddy (if for no other reason than she does not seem to mind going to movies early on a Saturday!). I appreciate the fact that she can discuss films in detail; that is what makes it so fun.

So Daisy and I went to see “At World’s End” on Saturday. The theater was crowded but not packed, and it turned out to be a good call to see the film on Saturday, as it was a rainy day in Chicago. After sitting through NUMEROUS trailers, the film started. I was immediately struck with how somber and serious (and adult) this entry in the series was to be. You will understand when you see it; I felt a chill when the child on the gallows started to sing. It perfectly set the mood for the film, and I was immediately drawn into the story. So now comes the part where I discuss what was good and what was bad.

What was bad? Well…there were quite a few plot points left dangling. These include, but are not limited to, the Calypso-Davy Jones substory, the reason for the fate of the Kraken (when in the first film Beckett seemed so set on controlling Jones due to his control over the Kraken), the reason for Beckett’s “actions” at the end of the film, and Beckett’s reasons for wanting Norrington and a detachment of troops on board the Flying Dutchman with the heart of Davy Jones (I mean, would he not feel safer if the heart was in HIS possession?). I also thought (until the VERY end of the credits) that the Will/Elizabeth love story was completely superfluous. The resolution of the fate of Will and Elizabeth, however, assuaged my concerns regarding this. Most of my gripes (and the gripes of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes who have blasted this film with a rating in the 40s) could be addressed through paying careful attention at the groundwork that was laid in the second film or the plot points introduced in the first film. I do not believe, however, that the shortcomings of the film lend themselves to the critical drubbing that we have seen thus far. I only wish that the critics had watched the first 2 films just prior to watching the third. It does make a difference.

What worked in this film? First of all, there was more of a focus on Captain Jack. In the first film, he supposedly went mad when Barbossa and the crew of the Black Pearl left him to die on a deserted island, but in truth he had not gone mad because he only spent 3 days there. Here, however, we learn that Captain Jack has, indeed, gone mad from his time in Davy Jones’ Locker (read the “afterlife”). Depp once again chews up the scenery at every opportunity, and I was glad to see it. After all, I really missed Captain Jack being the focus in the second film. Secondly, the third film restored that mystery factor that had been missing in the second film. I was wrong: the mystery factor was not the lack of focus on Captain Jack alone; in actuality, the missing factor in the second film was Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa. Barbossa’s return was the best thing of all. I realized that part of the charm in the first film was the repartee between Barbossa and Captain Jack, and here the repartee is back in full force. Geoffrey Rush was amazing, and I do not think that he has merited the attention that he deserves. Thirdly, I admire the fact that the filmmakers (Verbinski and the writers together) did not shirk away from the harsh choices concerning the fates of some of the characters. I will not give these away, but once again, I was impressed with the choices that were made, particularly with regard to the resolution of the Elizabeth/Will storyline. There were no needless deaths of lead characters (a la “The Matrix Revolutions”), and I loved the final coda at the end of the credits. I was surprised that few people stayed in the theater until the end considering that both of the previous “Pirates” films had an extra bit at the end. This coda, however, unlike those in the previous films, ties in directly to the fate of Will and Elizabeth. Do not leave the theater until AFTER the credits have rolled. You will not be disappointed. I also LOVED the key action set piece of the film. There is so much happening in the face-off between the Flying Dutchman and the Black Pearl, but Verbinski does a masterful job of shifting among the various events to the extent that at no time was I confused as to what was going on. This is skill.

What is the final verdict? This is a solid effort and a worthy finale to the “Pirates” films even if the filmmakers chose not to make another one (although there are many more tales that can be told). How does it measure up overall? I must agree with my friend Aaron and give it a “B.” A “B” is good for a summer film considering that I have enjoyed so few from the past few years. It means that the film is “good but not great.” Would I see it again? Absolutely. What would I change? If the film (already long at 2.5+ hours) had an extra 15 minutes, it could have answered many of the dangling questions and been a more complete film. Who knows? Maybe those bits of film exist somewhere. All I can say is that I am glad that Bob Iger is now in charge of Disney. He greenlit a $300 million dollar film, and I enjoyed it as did Daisy.

What’s the next film up for review? “Ocean’s 13.” Stay tuned! By the way. if you are interested in finding out more about the Eisner years, I highly recommend the book "Disney War," written by James Stewart.

Shrek the Third....Blecch the Third.....

So I saw “Shrek the Third” last weekend. With the number of sequels in Hollywood rising beyond the scope of reason, I was not surprised that “Shrek the Third” (or STT as I will be referring to it in the rest of this entry) had fallen into that dreadful category of sequels that are victims of “sequelitis.” What is sequelitis? Well, there are several types of films. There are those that do not demand that any sequel be made, whether it is because of the story itself (imagine “Citizen Kane 2: Rosebud’s Revenge”), because the success of the first film was due solely to the talents of the star (*cough* “Son of the Mask”*cough*), or because the story was so bad in the first place that there is no way in heck that the audience should be exposed to further dreck for fear that they might all commit seppuku. There are also films that can be considered chapters in an overall story (including the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings films). The wonderful thing about these films is that the filmmaker can really explore different character nuances once the main characters have been introduced in the first film. There is no need to spend an inordinate amount of time on the character introduction for each of the returning characters, and the filmmaker can delve further into story development. Finally, we have the “money grab”- the sequel that has NO RIGHT being made because of an absence of artistry of any kind (or minimal) in the making of the film. Here is where most sequels belong. I am not no naïve as to believe that producers are altruistic in their reasons to make sequels; they ALL want to make lots of money. Sequels have a built in recognizability that makes them easier to market to the general public. Absent a long publication history or pop culture references (comics characters, the Transformers, and the Bourne series), producers are understandably loathed to invest lots of time and money into unproven commodities. Even where the generation of multimillions should be a sure thing, some star will go off his rocker and ruin the box office solely because of his or her wacky antics (Tom Cruise or Lindsay Lohan, anyone?). The money grab is the most insidious of sequels because at this point, the producers and directors just do not care about quality; all they want to do is milk the property for all that it is worth or maybe put their own loathsome spin on a strong property that may end up dooming it for all time (something that Joel Schumacher attempted mightily with “Batman and Robin”). Key features of the money grab include (but are not limited to): 1) a different cast (although a cast that is just going through the motions, as was the case in “STT,” also qualifies in my book), 2) a story retread, 3) the introduction of “new, exciting, hip” characters (the “Scrappy Doo” approach), or, the most insidious of all, 4) the lazy writer/too many writers. Ladies and gentleman, may I present “STT.”

Let me start off by saying that this is a GREAT movie for small children. The kids in the audience loved it, and if you are a parent, I recommend this film as good, clean, wholesome moviemaking. The problem here is that the adult audience is a large reason for Shrek 2 being #3 on the list of all time domestic blockbusters (unadjusted for inflation), yet the writers chose to give this audience short shrift. This would be antithetical to the whole reason for the film to be made in the first place (i.e., to entice full paying childless adults who loved the first 2 films). I mean, although “Shrek 2” had the introduction of a hip cool character, the script writers did not make that character (Puss in Boots) superfluous; they gave Antonio Banderas something to play with and also some great material (I still laugh during the “Cops” take off when the knights find catnip on Puss and he intones, as most perps do on the “Cops” TV show, “thas no’ mine, man.”). The film also extended the story of Fiona and Shrek to a logical place: how are her parents going to react? It was kind of like the Shrek version of “Meet the Parents.” I loved that film save for the character of the Fairy Godmother. It had some great sequences, and there was a lot of effort spent on the principles of the cast while changing around the Shrek formula. Here? The film was totally forgettable. There were, to be sure, a few moments, but the moments were few and far between. The pop culture references were not as on point as in the previous films, and the introduction of the other princesses seemed tacked on. They were not personifications of the Disney princesses nor were they send ups of them; they were just thrown in as extra bodies to separate out what had been, to this point, the core of both Shrek films: the relationship between Shrek and Fiona. As the trailers have made clear, there is a baby Shrek in the film, but the baby does not make an appearance (save for a single dream sequence) until the end of the film. Remember how gypped you felt when Darth Vader was in black only at the very end of the film? Once again, the filmmaker does not deliver on the promise from the trailers. The filmmakers missed a golden opportunity to really focus on the changing dynamics of Shrek and Fiona’s relationship and move the struggles that all couples face (courtship in the first film, dealing with the in-laws/early marriage struggles in the second film) to the changes associated with having children in the third one. Instead, the audience is treated to a completely predictable story about Charming’s revenge, Arthur, and the other fairy tale princesses. This was a good film for kids, but if you are an adult, do not go into the theater expecting the same level of quality from the first 2 Shrek films. This was a money grab in every sense of the word, the “safe film” that causes the series to lose its way (yes, “Shrek 4” has already been announced) because of sequelitis.

I also have some non-movie news. I started my summer clerkship! Exams are behind me and I am at the law office every day faced with the prospect that this is what the rest of my life will look like. So far, I must say that this exceeds my expectations. I am eagerly working on my projects, and I wake up looking forward to the day. I realize that being a summer clerk is a LOT different from working as an attorney full time, but I really like it! I will still be writing my reviews, though, so look for my “Pirates” review next week.

Spider-Man 3

Many of you already know that I am a comic fan. From time I was 6, I have been enamored of the comics medium. I have witnessed the development of the medium from the children’s stories of my childhood to the more grown-up graphic novels of today. I think that a well written and executed comic really succeeds on dual artistic levels: that of excellent literature and that of art. The archetypes that most people enjoy in other artistic works are there, but the comics creators and the ever changing creative teams on the different books all allow multiple versions and storylines of these archetypes. Imagine, if you will, Homer’s Odysseus as written by Shakespeare or even Bernard Cornwell’s Richard Sharpe as written by Ian Fleming. Although the underlying archetype is the same, the artists and writers through the years have successfully placed their own indelible imprints upon the collected adventures of comic book mainstays. I daresay that anyone reading Bob Kane/Bill Finger/Jerry Robinson Batman stories from the 1940s would recognize the treatment of Batman and the Joker in Alan Moore’s and Brian Bolland’s graphic novel masterpiece “The Killing Joker,” but this is a good thing. The constant changes in the storylines and status quo of so many heroes has proven to be quite necessary in contributing to the longevity of pop culture icons like Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. At the same time, the consistency of various story elements (the characters’ secret identities, supporting cast members, and continuity histories) allows even the most casual of comic fans to pick up a few issues and read an adventure or two of his or her favorite heroes.

This extension and development of stories is not just limited solely to the comic book medium. The motion picture world has been responsible for some of the best (Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2) and some of the worst (Superman Returns, Batman and Robin, the Shadow, Ghost Rider) stories involving comic book heroes. I do not envy the task of filmmakers, for theirs is more difficult that that of comic creators. Filmmakers are trying to serve everyone (casual fans, non-fans, and hard core fans alike) by incorporating enough different elements to please everyone. The movie story has to be faithful enough to drive the die hard fans to the theaters yet accessible that it not turn off the casual fan. The story needs to contribute to the overall cannon of stories for the character, yet it cannot deviate too much from the established “safe” norms of comic book films. In trying to please so many parties, filmmakers often try the “kitchen sink approach”, throwing everything into a film and hoping that it will please everyone. The best of the films have directors who recognize the importance of verisimilitude to the source material These directors change those things which are tangential to those aspects that are material to the character in question, yet they respect the source material enough to understand why it has sustained its readership audience for so long. This is why Ghost Rider failed and why Batman Begins succeeded. Verisimilitude. Respect for the source material.

Yesterday, I saw Spider-Man 3 at the Navy Pier IMAX. I had been cooped up all week in my apartment studying for law school finals, and I figured that this would be the perfect study break to maintain me through the next 2 long weeks. My friend Jeff and I arrived right on time (with me having spent the morning studying with my friend Elese at the library for 3.5 hours). We had great seats and were treated to the trailer for the next Harry Potter film (3-D IMAX…gotta get tickets). At this point, the film started, and the opening credits began. Now, the opening credits themselves were very creative, with scenes from the previous 2 films playing within the web spaces of the screen. At the same time, we are treated to our first glimpses of the “alien costume” (more on this later). What really intrigued me was the obvious change to the musical score. I knew instantly that there was another composer involved in the film, and this was another good thing. I have always found Danny Elfman’s scores to be (with the notable exception of the original Batman film) rather pedestrian. Christopher Young did a great job of adapting the score set down by Elfman and making it his own. For me, music is an extremely important part of the movie going experience, so my expectations started to rise. The film then started.

What worked in the film? First of all, the action sequences. If there is any film that demands to be seen on IMAX, it would be Spider-Man 3. Raimi did a great job early on of interspersing the action with the drama and the comedy, and the action sequences were exhilarating to watch. The first sequence alone (with the new Goblin) was worth the price of admission. Thomas Hayden Church was also a wonderful Flint Marko/Sandman. Raimi faithfully transferred the tragic character from the comics and gave him a new life on the screen. One of my major problems with the film (discussed in more detail later) was the fact that we did not get to see more of him. The realization of the character of Venom was successful enough to surprise me. I wondered how Raimi would be able to pull off the “living slime” look of the alien symbiote and the irreverent nature of such an evil villain. For once, there was a Spider-Man villain that was completely unsympathetic. The character of Eddie Brock, played by Topher Grace, oozed insouciance as he made with the false charm to get ahead. The CGI has improved leaps and bounds beyond the first film, as Venom looks REAL. Awesome.

What did not work in the film? The overall story and the pacing. Early on in the film, Raimi was firing on all cylinders. We had the introduction of the symbiote (via an acceptable twist on the established “Secret Wars” origin of the costume from the comics history), the introduction of Harry Osborne as the new Green Goblin, and Peter’s excitement over proposing to Mary Jane and New York’s love of Spider-Man. As we see Peter’s star rise, we see Mary Jane’s fall, and this was where Raimi was at his best: the juxtaposition of amazing action sequences with character development. We also get the introduction of Flint Marko/Sandman and the origin therein. Flint Marko is a sympathetic villain in the same way as Otto Octavius in the second film. Everything was going according to script. About halfway through the film, however, it appeared that Raimi handed off the directing chores to someone else. Trust me, you will understand it when you see it. After that sequence (when the symbiote has bonded to Peter and we see “bad Peter” and “bad Spider-Man”), the film is in a mad rush to the finish. The second film lacked the character development and careful crafting of Raimi’s earlier efforts, and I can only attribute this to the writing. Remember the kitchen sink approach to sequels and writing that I alluded to earlier? Here it was, in all of its splendor. Raimi, in the second half of the film, committed a common crime in many comic book films: he tried to listen to everyone with regard to what they wanted to see in a Spider-Man film, and in the end, he sacrificed story in favor of action. A better story would include the introduction of the alien costume within the backdrop of the Sandman story. Perhaps the film would end with the climactic confrontation between Harry and Peter; a cliffhanger ending such as this would have dovetailed quite nicely with the beginning of a 4^th film, where the focus would be on the development of Venom. Perhaps because Raimi thought this to be his swan song on the series, he felt the need to put in as much as possible. What the audience is left with is a series of questions beginning with the interrogative “If only…”.

Let me stress that this is not a bad film (as was Ghost Rider and Superman Returns). In a way, this film is more frustrating because I know of the capabilities Sam Raimi and the cast and crew. They made an almost perfect superhero film their last time out. By setting the bar so high, perhaps they were doomed to failure. Don’t get me wrong-I still enjoyed the film (except for the weird 5 minutes in the middle of the film), but it was thisclose to being great as opposed to being merely good. Maybe Sony should have allowed Raimi to cut the film in half. All I know is that if there is another Spider-Man film, I hope that the final act does not involve the now-cliched “Mary Jane in mortal danger” hook that has heretofore been present in all 3 films. The next director in the series (if not Raimi) should return to the character focus that marks other more successful comic films. In the end, the fact that we care about the characters is what makes a successful superhero film.

NOTE: if you chose to see the film, see it in IMAX. The picture was so clear that I could see Toby Maguire’s contact lenses!