"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - Directed by Rob Marshall, written by Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio, starring Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane, and Geoffrey Rush - Rated PG-13

Mermaids with fangs? (Shaking head...)

Captain Jack Sparrow is back and this time he’s not weighed down by Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom; this time Captain Jack is the star, for better or worse. On Stranger Tides attempts to be a simpler tale than the last two Pirates sequels but ends up being just as busy, twice as goofy, and half as entertaining.

Tides has Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp in his comfort zone) searching for the Fountain of Youth. Even though this film has left out Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, Jack still has plenty of cohorts…and enemies. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) is the main familiar face. New to the series are Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and Blackbeard (Ian McShane). And thrown in for good measure are some voodoo zombies, a clergyman, a Spanish armada, and mermaids. They all tie together somehow but the point is that it is all a bit too much.

The clergyman and the mermaids are the biggest problem with the film. It’s as if the screenwriters started writing the script without two young lovers in it then chickened out and added a couple of replacement characters for Will and Elizabeth, so any chance of the film being much different from the others went out the window. What’s worse is that these two new additions are much less compelling than Will and Elizabeth. The film would be much better off without them.

Tides would also benefit from the exclusion of the mermaids in general. The Pirates series has always had some goofy supernatural elements to it, but having multiple scenes in which grown men shudder in fear at the thought of mermaids was just too stupid. Not to mention the mermaids themselves which turn out to be…vampires? Vampires with some kind of whips? It’s never really explained just what they are and who cares anyway? They should’ve never been in the film to begin with.

Including Blackbeard and Angelica in Tides was more than enough new blood for the series. Blackbeard even brings in the added supernatural element of voodoo, which is another reason why the mermaids were unnecessary. Instead, the bloated script doesn’t have enough time to really explain anything about Blackbeard and his voodoo tendencies or just what is so magical about his sword or his ship. Ian McShane does what he can with the character, but at times even he looked confused about who or what he was. With that historic character and the casting, the addition of Blackbeard turned out to be a huge disappointment. The film focuses on all the wrong things.

The movie isn’t without its fun, though. Depp is still entertaining as Jack Sparrow. Since this is his fourth time playing the pirate there are no surprises here, but if you’ve enjoyed him before you’ll enjoy him again. Rush is as great as ever as Barbossa, though the film woefully misuses him. The movie would’ve been much better if the entire film had been about Sparrow and Barbossa teaming up. It’s been done in the series before, but so what? Depp and Rush are much more entertaining onscreen together than some no-name, whiny clergyman and a nearly mute mermaid.

The look of the film is one of the brighter points. This is a big budget movie and you can see the money on the screen, which is always a good thing. As far as the action goes, it’s serviceable but nothing too memorable. The 3-D, aside from a few sword pointing moments, was pointless and not at all worth the extra money.

On Stranger Tides is an overlong, goofy mess that could’ve used some serious rewriting and editing. It’s not a complete disaster or anything, but it is definitely a missed opportunity to reinvent the series overall. Many people had been disappointed with the sequels, with some going so far as to skip the third one because the plot had become so convoluted. (I enjoyed the sequels, though I can understand the problems some had with them.) Tides is certainly easier to follow than those films, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically better. The story is simple but there are too many players. The new Pirates film isn’t a colossal waste of time, but it definitely isn’t as fun as it should be. A film featuring Jack Sparrow cannot afford to be this dull and bloated. You won’t be sorry if you just wait to rent this one.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

That stuff with Richard Griffiths as King George was almost unbearable.

Why make Barbossa part of the British Navy? Geoffrey Rush has the greatest pirate laugh and they relegate him to the straight man role of the film. Let the guy be the over the top pirate he was meant to be.

Stephen Graham had a few funny moments as one of the new comic-relief pirates.

Was it just me or did it seem like it took forever for Jack Sparrow to finally end up on a boat. A movie with "Pirates" in the title should stick to the ocean as much as possible.

"The King's Speech"

The King's Speech - Directed by Tom Hooper, written by David Seidler, starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Timothy Spall, and Guy Pearce - Rated R

Awards bait about a stuttering king? Give it a chance, it's pretty great.

Every year a film is released that screams, “Oscar!” and this year that film is The King’s Speech. Unfortunately, some people are turned off by films that seem destined for awards because the very synopsis of such films comes off as pretentious. It’s understandable why some would be put off by the story of a stuttering Duke of York in pre-WWII Britain. That’s right; The King’s Speech is all about a king with a speech impediment. It’s easy to see why some would be dismissive when they hear “awards” in relation to that plot synopsis. But people should not dismiss this film because it truly is deserving of awards consideration. It’s compelling and, more importantly, it’s entertaining.

The King’s Speech takes place in the two decades leading up to World War II. The Duke of York (let’s just stick with Albert for his name from here on out) isn’t in line to be king, but he still has to be able to speak to the public. His father, King George V (a great Michael Gambon), pressures him and doesn’t seem to understand that the problem can’t be fixed by sternly commanding him. This has left Albert short tempered and touchy. His wife and main source of inspiration, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), devotes her time to finding the best speech therapist and this is where the film really begins.

This film is actually about the friendship between the Albert and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel has a unique approach to therapy and he requires Albert to follow his rules and open up about his personal life. Albert, who is intensely protective of his personal life, reacts with outrage early on, but can’t ignore the results Lionel gets. Their sessions are combative for the most part, but a bond is created. Their friendship is realistic in that Albert can have outbursts, but Lionel accepts them and continues on in his own stubborn way. The two men are both stubborn, it’s just that Lionel is much more understanding.

Albert and Lionel’s friendship is also the source of entertainment for the film. Their sessions are amusing enough (some of the speech exercises are a bit goofy), but the way the two characters play off each other is the real entertainment. It helps that Firth and Rush are great actors. Rush is a natural when it comes to creating sympathy, so Lionel is an instantly likable character. It would be easy to dislike Albert, but Firth plays him with such sincerity that you understand his personality and want things to work out for him. The ability to mimic a stutter is only one aspect of Firth’s impressive performance. Firth’s facial expressions throughout tell more about the character of Albert than any stuttered lines of dialogue ever could.

Helena Bonham Carter is great as Elizabeth, as well. Elizabeth is very devoted to her husband and Carter embodies that quite well. On the opposite side of devotion to Albert’s cure, Guy Pearce does a fine job in a short role as Edward. Edward, Albert’s older brother and heir to the throne, likes Albert the way he is because he can control him by poking fun at his impediment. Rounding out the cast is Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill. It’s a short role and Churchill is mainly a bystander in this film, but it’s still a fun performance.

The King’s Speech serves as a bit of a history lesson, as you may have noticed from all the real characters involved. (Warning: SPOILERS FOR HISTORY.) Many may be unaware (as this reviewer was) of Edward’s abdication of the crown due to his relationship with a divorced American woman, Wallis Simpson. The idea that Albert wasn’t really meant to be king adds much more gravity to his problem. Fixing his speech is not just about being able to communicate. The struggle turns into his ability to be the voice of the people of England. The fact that this is all set during the buildup to World War II make the stakes that much higher.

This film isn’t as completely serious as it sounds and it is definitely more visually appealing that some might expect. The training sequences are fun, but they are also shot in an interesting montage. Director Tom Hooper and cinematographer Danny Cohen zoom in during one exercise and zoom out to reveal a different exercise. It’s all very seamless. The framing of the scenes in this film is interesting as well. You get to see a lot of the sets and they are all unique and/or historical. In short, the film looks great.

The King’s Speech may appear overly serious if you only read about it or just watch a preview. Ignore the serious hype the film is getting and you’ll realize that this is a touching, funny, and interesting drama about friendship, devotion, and patriotism. Does it deserve awards buzz? Yes, but, more importantly, it deserves a large audience.


Random Thoughts

This isn't really a comment on the movie, but more of a comment about the historical situation. It's interesting that this problem, a leader with a speech impediment, would be quite impossible in America. Since England is a monarchy, Albert becomes the voice of the people through birth alone. And there is no way a person without the ability to speak properly could be elected in any kind of democratic office in the modern world. I just find it interesting how time changes what type of person can be a leader.

There is a bit of a rating controversy concerning this film. The dreaded f-word will get you an R-rating if it is used twice. This film is fairly squeaky clean until a scene in which Albert lets out many expletives as part of an exercise. It's a great, funny scene...and it is the sole reason for the R-rating. It would be nice if the MPAA could rate movies based on the context of the use of "obscene" language. The point is that The King's Speech is not really an R-rated movie.