Movie Review: GREEN LANTERN

GREEN LANTERN

2011
PG-13

Green Lantern is a 2011 superhero action film directed by Martin Campbell that tells the origins of Earth's first addition to the Green Lantern Corps. When hotshot fighter pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) manages to destroy a new fighter jet during a simulated dogfight, he comes under heavy scrutiny from his superiors and his peers, especially his wingman (and love interest) Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), for being reckless and irresponsible. Later that night, Hal is whisked to a remote swamp by a mysterious ball of green energy. Once there, he meets an alien who has crash-landed on Earth - the alien soon bestows a mysterious green ring and lantern to Hal and tells him that the ring has chosen him to succeed him. Confused, Hal takes the items home and begins to ponder their power. He soon learns the basics of their use, but as soon as he discovers the ring's hidden power, the same ball of energy takes him to a faraway planet called Oa, where thousands of Green Lanterns reside. Hal begins to learn the ways of the Lanterns via a crash course from lead Lantern Sinestro (Mark Strong). Meanwhile, back on Earth, an aspiring scientist name Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) receives the honor of conducting the autopsy on the aforementioned alien. In the process, however, he becomes infected by another alien source hidden inside the creature's body. Almost simultaneously, the Lanterns learn of an old enemy named Parallax spreading throughout the galactic sectors in the form of a new type of evil that threatens to take over the universe.

To be fair, I'm selling the storyline a little bit short with the synopsis I've given above. There is a little bit more going on than what I've posited already, and it actually comes off as less confusing than what I've written. However, I don't want to delve into too many details lest I give away the entire storyline before you have a chance to give it a gander. We actually get a relatively interesting story to follow. Sure, it's not brilliant, and it's lack in anything truly unpredictable, but it does well enough to keep the audience engaged in something more than the characters. There are holes here and there, but for the most part, the screenplay works relatively well considering the genre.

If anything's really selling the movie as a success, it's the level of acting. It's nothing truly spectacular, but the cast does a decent job with what they're given. Reynolds always finds a way to be engaging and charismatic in his own off-beat way, so he does well as our central lead. There are a few bigger names that are given screen-time but don't necessarily bring much to the table (here's looking at you, Miss Lively and Tim Robbins). We actually get some semi-strong performances from Sarsgaard (whom I never would've recognized aside from his voice) and Strong (who I also probably wouldn't have recognized), two actors who generally bring a higher standard to their roles. We are also graced with some rather good vocal performances from some of our CGI characters. Be on the listen for the likes of Michael Clarke Duncan and Geoffrey Rush as two of the Green Lanterns who aid Hal in his training.

We also get a rather well-crafted soundtrack for the film, and although it's not the most stellar score I've ever heard, I would like to tip my hat to James Newton Howard for his work.

Overall, Green Lantern has its moments, but it never truly pushes itself beyond a level of "good." I think it had the potential to be something more, but for whatever reason, the filmmakers decided to hold back a little too much, going for something rote and a little contrived instead. In different hands, this movie could have been a smash-hit, but as it stands, it will probably be a fun once-view that will quickly fade into obscurity. Although, they did leave a set-up for a potential sequel - be sure to stick through the credits for an additional scene (it comes halfway through the credits, so you don't have to wait all the way through).

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: C+
0.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

2011
PG-13

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a 2011 action film directed by Rob Marshall that serves as the fourth installment in Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The film opens with our favorite hero, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) traversing the streets of London in the hopes of finding a ship that will take him to the fabled Fountain of Youth. After meeting - and fighting - a former lover named Angelica (Penélope Cruz), Sparrow finds himself a deckhand on the Queen Anne's Revenge, ship of the feared Blackbeard (Ian McShane). Angelica, who happens to be Blackbeard's daughter, has learned of a prophesy saying that her father will be killed by a one-legged man unless they can reach the Fountain of Youth and guarantee his immortality. So, with the help of "Captain" Jack, the Revenge travels across the Atlantic Ocean, sailing through mermaid-infested waters to the island where the Fountain of Youth is said to be. To make matters worse, the crew has to keep a weather eye out for their competitors: a mysterious band of Spaniards and a crew of British privateers led by none other than the all-too-familiar Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), all who also seek the Fountain's amazing power.

When I first heard about the idea for On Stranger Tides, I was immediately filled with a sense of glee and fanboy-ish excitement. As you may or may not have noticed from my posts in the past few days, I'm quite a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, so taking another venture with good ol' Captain Jack seemed like a fantastic idea. However, as some of the details of the film started to be released, I started to question whether the franchise was going in the right direction. (I think a lot of the questions I had were raised in my trailer breakdown for On Stranger Tides). It seemed like there were just too many changes: the characters of Will and Elizabeth wouldn't be returning; Rob Marshall had replaced Gore Verbinski in the director's chair... I'm sure I could list any number of deviations from the original trilogy. So I feel like my concerns were somewhat justified. One piece of information that kept my hopes up for On Stranger Tides was the fact that the screenplay was going to be loosely based on Tim Powers' novel of the same name. The fact that they actually had award-winning source material for the storyline gave me a little bit of hope that we might have a legitimate screenplay this time around. But that's neither here nor there, I suppose. But I digress... Let's get into my review of the film.

I don't think I need to say much about the acting that I haven't already said before. Depp and Rush are their fantastic selves once again, and Kevin McNally does well reprising his role. Aside from those three, however, we have an entirely new cast, and I think that was the most off-putting part of the film. Because we the audience had spent three films with the same characters, something felt a little amiss without Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley running around and falling in love. I even missed our little bits of comic relief from some of the minor characters. That being said, I didn't think that our newer characters were all that terrible. Academy Award-winner Cruz does well with her role, but I don't think she was given a lot to work with (more on that in a moment). McShane is also a force on the screen, and although I think they could've gone a little deeper with his character, he was definitely serviceable. Also be on the lookout for cameo appearances from Keith Richards and Dame Judi Dench.

The storyline is also serviceable, but it's lacking a little bit of the bite that the previous films have seen. But I have a bit of a theory on this. Let's think back to 2003 when The Curse of the Black Pearl hit theaters. No one really knew what the film was going to be like - I mean, it was a movie adapted from a theme park ride, so it probably could've gone either way. As we all know, it turned out to be a smash hit, but critically, financially and personally for me (the original film ranks as the fifty-fifth greatest film I've ever seen). Because no one knew it would have such success, however, the film was crafted so that it could stand alone as its own story. After its massive popularity, two sequels were shot simultaneously, and they were both completely connected, creating two films that cannot stand alone - they need each other to make sense. The reason for this complementary nature is the amount of exposition we're given - information given in Dead Man's Chest is essential to understand At World's End completely. The first film didn't delve into the exposition because we didn't know whether it would click with audiences in the first place.

Fast forward to 2011, and we have the fourth installment in a highly successful franchise. All reports currently say that two more Pirates films will be on the way, crafting a second trilogy for the series. Because these films are almost certain to rake in huge numbers at the box office, I think it's safe to say that Pirates 5 and Pirates 6 loom on the horizon. Because of this, I think the filmmakers chose to give On Stranger Tides - the first film in their NEW trilogy - a different feel. With the certainty of successive films, they could delve into exposition with this particular installment. The whole feel of On Stranger Tides gives the sense that there's much, much more to come.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is just the start of another continued adventure into the Jack Sparrow saga, and it should be viewed as such. Some people may be put-off by the slightly slower pace, but this second trilogy is already looking to have a vastly different face than its predecessor. I for one am excited by the prospect, and I shall eagerly await the next installments. Maybe it's just me being a fanboy, but I'm expecting some great things from the next couple of Pirates adventures.

(Oh, and as is the usual with the Pirates films, don't forget to stay through the end credits for one final scene.)

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B
1.5 Thumbs Up

Addition to Rankings
Best Sequel - #32

DVD Challenge #8: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
2007
PG-13
Run-time: 2 hours, 49 minutes

Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Yun-Fat Chow, Tom Hollander, & Bill Nighy


The third and then-final chapter in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise may have garnered the worst critical reviews of the original trilogy, and it may have been the least-understood and least-loved installment of the films to that point, but I for one have always rather enjoyed it. Sure, I'm a bit of a Pirates fanboy, and I have no qualms with admitting myself to be as such. I can see where some may have been put off by At World's End - it's twenty minutes longer than Dead Man's Chest, making it the longest film in the series, On Stranger Tides included. At nearly three hours long, it definitely feels it at certain moments. But I still find it to be a romping ride into pirate mythology and lore.

As I mentioned in my write-up of Dead Man's Chest, the second and third films in the Pirates franchise held relatively true to the basics of pirate mythology. I didn't learn any of this until after seeing the third film in theaters. At the time, I was as confused as everyone else with all of the goofiness of Davy Jones' Locker in the film and its continuation in the film's reality. In addition, the concept of the goddess Calypso got a lot of people scratching their heads as well. As far-fetched as it sounds, it all holds true to the mythological basis of many a supernatural pirate story. And as we saw in The Curse of the Black Pearl, the filmmakers had no problem delving into the supernatural.

And so, if you can suspend your disbelief for the epically long adventure, you're in for quite a treat. Yes, there's a bit of pirate politics involved, and at points, the film moves a little bit slower than the previous films in the franchise. However, it all serves as quite a bit of exposition which may have been better served to be spread out throughout the franchise. We get it all here, as it were, and for those of you who are able, there's a lot to be had. I know that the screenplay offers quite a bit to digest, and I think the sheer magnitude of information we're given pushed a lot of viewers away when the film hit theaters back in 2007. There's so many intertwined storylines that it's a little bit difficult to follow at times, but multiple viewings definitely allow a better understanding.

As usual, we get a slew of legitimate performances. Johnny Depp is Jack Sparrow once again, delving into a bit of a weirder portrayal of him as he battles the doldrums of Davy Jones' Locker. The return of Geoffrey Rush to a starring role is also a welcome sight as his absence in the second film definitely caused me to miss him. We even get a cameo from famed Rolling Stones rocker Keith Richards, whose screen presence is so dominant that it's hard to take your eyes off him.

So although there's many an individual who wasn't fond of this ending to the trilogy, I for one love it equally and find it a legitimate finalé. Had the series ended on that note, I would have embraced the trilogy as it held. Fortunately for everyone, On Stranger Tides hits U.S. theaters tonight at midnight, so we shall see where the winds will take us. I couldn't be more excited.

Previous DVD Challenge: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST (2007)

DVD Challenge #6: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
2003
PG-13
Run-time: 2 hours, 23 minutes

Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom & Jack Davenport



When I first heard about the decision to make a film based off the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction at Disneyland, I had just as many reservations as so many others had as well. Adapting a story is one thing, but adapting a ride into a movie is something entirely different. And, like everyone else, I was utterly blown away by just how good the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, turned out to be.

One of the best decisions they made was to take the step into the PG-13 realm, making Pirates the first PG-13 film ever to be released by Disney. In doing so, the filmmakers gave themselves the opportunity to craft a true swashbuckling tale that wasn't held back to the necessity to remain entirely family friendly. And while it's nowhere near the edgiest PG-13 movie I've ever seen, it's definitely a step further than anything Disney had ever done prior.

Obviously, the first thing that anyone remembers about this film is the brilliant, Oscar-nominated performance of Johnny Depp as our lead Captain Jack Sparrow. And though he's definitely the scene-stealer of the bunch, he's not the only actor giving a fantastic performance. While Captain Jack is off doing his stylish version of piracy, we get a pitch-perfect portrayal of the stereotypical pirate from Oscar-winner Geoffrey Rush. And how can I forget how good Jack Davenport is as the "villain" from the Royal Navy? For a full breakdown of my opinions on the characters, check out my post about my favorite characters from the entire franchise.

We also get a rather strong screenplay, much stronger than one would imagine could come from a film like this. It offers quite a few twists and turns, and it brings the story full circle (for which I'm a total sucker). We also receive a rousing musical score from the mind of Klaus Badelt. It's so good, in fact, that it made it onto my list of favorite film scores from all of cinematic history.

Overall, the first installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise is a definite must-see. It's one of my favorite films of all time and ranks at #55 on my list of greatest films ever made. I can't even begin to tell you how excited I am for the fourth installment (On Stranger Tides), due in theaters on May 20. I'm going to watch the other two Pirates films before the new one hits theaters, so be on the lookout for those issues of my DVD Challenge.

Previous DVD Challenge: THE HAPPENING (2008)

Trailer Breakdown: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN - ON STRANGER TIDES

Earlier today, a second trailer was released for the upcoming sequel, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. I had originally meant to do a trailer breakdown for the first official trailer, but seeing as this new one has been released, I got myself a-thinkin'. Perhaps I could break down both trailers simultaneously in the same post? So, for your viewing and reading pleasure, I give you the first two official trailers for the next installment of the Jack Sparrow saga:

Trailer #1


Trailer #2

As per usual, I came up with a few questions that I can either answer or would like to be answered upon the film's release.

How will Rob Marshall's direction fare in comparison to the previous three films in the series?
After directing the first three films in the franchise, Gore Verbinski chose to step away from Pirates in order to work on other films (including the recent release, Rango). Rob Marshall was chosen as his replacement, and the immediate reaction was anything but wholly positive. He's the Oscar-nominated director of films like 2002's Chicago and 2009's Nine, but the musical aspect of those films led some Internet fanboys to wonder whether the newest Pirates adventure might actually turn into a silly song-and-dance number. I personally would like to give Marshall a little more credit than that, but it does remain to be seen whether his direction will change the very tone of the franchise.

We're going to the Fountain of Youth, savvy?
This shouldn't be much of a surprise considering Jack Sparrow was making his getaway with a map to the Fountain the last time we saw him. It left the door open for another film, giving us a general direction in which it may be headed. With a screenplay loosely based on Tim Powers' 1987 novel On Stranger Tides, which focuses on a potential quest for the Fountain, we could be in for quite a treat in terms of actual screenplay.

How will the additions of Penélope Cruz and Ian McShane affect the on-screen dominance that Johnny Depp has created in the franchise?
I know that the previous installments have had the likes of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom - both fine actors in their own right - but the previous trilogy was really Jack Sparrow's show. The only one who came close to matching is screen presence was Geoffrey Rush as Captain Hector Barbossa. But now, Depp will have to deal with the likes of Oscar winner Cruz and Golden Globe winner McShane who both demand just as much of a presence as he does. It should work relatively well, but there's always the possibility that too much star power is just too much.

On that note, how will our new young lovers fare in On Stranger Tides?
We're going to have another young couple to replace the love story that the absence of dear William and dear Elizabeth will leave. I don't recognize the actor and actress off-hand, but it's pretty clear who they are in the actual trailer. Because it looks as though Depp will have his hands full with Cruz, I don't think this particular romance will be played as much to the forefront as the Will/Elizabeth story was, but it should be good for a decent and interseting sub-plot, especially if the girl happens to be a mermaid, as you can see in the second trailer.

Speaking of which, I feel like we're getting a lot of potential villainy here, and not all of it seems like it fits with a pirate story.
As Jack Sparrow explains in the first trailer, any expedition to the Fountain of Youth will have to cross swords (pun intended) with the likes of mermaids, zombies and Blackbeard. Okay, so mermaids, I can get behind. Blackbeard makes total sense. But zombies? Yes, previous Pirates films have had their penchant for the mystical and supernatural, but the word "zombie" just doesn't seem to fit within the parameters of pirate mythology. They could make it work, but until I see it work on-screen, I'm not going to be entirely convinced with it.

What's the deal with this new scar that graces Jack Sparrow's right cheek?
In case you didn't notice - it was brutally obvious to me - Jack has a new scar in the shape of an "x" on his right cheek. I immediately wanted to know where it came from. I'm probably thinking way too hard about something so mundane, but if they don't address it at some point in the film, I think I'll be a little disappointed.

When and why did Barbossa "join the good guys" and enlist in the Royal Navy?
So this may be the most drastic change to any of the returning characters: Captain Hector Barbossa now appears to be a man of England, sailing with the Royal Navy as some type of commander. Now, there were some hints in 2007's At World's End that Barbossa may become a commodore, but that was going to be in the Jack Sparrow-led navy that apparently never came to fruition. But now Barbossa has gone from rogue buccaneer to an enlisted man? There's something fishy going on here, and I want to know what. And while I'm on the subject, what happened to his legs?! Like Sparrow's new scar, if this isn't addressed in the film, I'm going to feel gypped.

The Black Pearl makes its return, again under a new captain. This time it's Blackbeard, and Jack needs to get his beloved Pearl back.
Now, if I heard Barbossa correctly in the second trailer, I think he said that the Pearl actually mutinied on its own. He mentions that the ship's "riggin' had come to life" and the ship turned against him and its former crew, and in the aftermath, Blackbeard must have taken control. Did this perhaps bode terribly for the crew, which held a number of very likable characters? I have yet to see or hear evidence of their return in this film, so that could have been a sub-plot to eliminate their characters without ever bringing them back on-screen. This should prove to be an interesting twist. I mean, the ship itself has a life and mind of its own? It's fanciful, but within the Pirates universe, I'd believe it.

And finally, is anyone else absolutely stoked that Kevin McNally and Keith Richards are back on board for this installment?
I'm sure it was almost a given that Gibbs (McNally) would come back and play some role in this film, but the return of Captain Teague (Richards) is definitely going to be delightful. Let's hope that he gets a little more screen-time than he did in At World's End.


All in all, I could probably delve even further into these trailers and really nitpick at what may be coming for us upon the film's release on May 20. However, I'm going to leave it here. You can ponder all you want, but the fact remains: Pirates of the Caribbean is coming back, and I couldn't be more excited!

Movie Review: THE KING'S SPEECH

THE KING'S SPEECH

2010
R

You can watch the trailer here

Whenever I go into a film that's considered to be one of the year's best and a front-runner for the Oscar race, I always go into the theater trying to push all the hype out of my mind and view the film objectively. Sometimes, when a movie is as good as advertised, it's easy to do because you can just lose yourself in the movie. On occasion, you'll get a movie that doesn't live up to its hype, but fortunately for me, The King's Speech did not fit that particular situation.

The film, which was directed by Tom Hooper, opens on the Duke of York (Colin Firth), more affectionately known by his family as Bertie, as he attempts to give his first speech via wireless radio in 1925, and we learn that he has a terrible problem with stammering and stuttering. This problem causes him a deal of emotional anguish, leading his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) to seek professional help for him. After a series of failures, she finds Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a speech therapist with some unconventional methods. He begins to work with Bertie, and progress seems to be made. Meanwhile, the King of England (Michael Gambon) passes away, leaving the crown to Bertie's older brother (Guy Pearce), who eventually relinquishes the crown to Bertie in order to marry the woman he loves. Bertie takes the name King George VI and goes through the coronation process with the help of Lionel, who ultimately coaches him through his first wartime speech as England finds itself pulled into the start of World War II.

Although the screenplay is very good, I did have a few qualms that are probably more nitpicking than anything else. (By the way, you know a film is good when I have to nitpick to find problems with it). My first issue came early in the film where the time-frame seemingly jumped a number of years in a heartbeat, and I wasn't sure exactly when, or if, that had happened. It happens between Bertie's first and second visits to Logue, and I wasn't sure whether the time between visits had been a few hours, a few days, a few weeks or a few years. It bugged me for a few minutes, but I eventually picked up with the film. My biggest issue with The King's Speech, however, was the actual speech. Obviously, you can imagine where the film is headed the entire way through. Because a film like this is somewhat predictable, you need to deliver your finale as completely and convincingly as you can. However, I felt as though that final speech just came and went without really reflecting on the accomplishment of it all. It was supposed to be the summation of the entire movie, and at least for me, it just didn't have that final umph, if you know what I mean.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have absolutely no qualms with the acting in The King's Speech. Many have been saying that Firth will win the Oscar for his performance as King George VI, and to be honest, he probably will win it. He's absolutely fantastic, and he deserves the award. That doesn't mean I don't think there's anyone who deserves it more (here's looking at you, James Franco), but with how the Academy tends to vote, I'd be surprised to see Firth miss out for the second year in a row. Helena Bonham Carter is also very good, but a lot should be said about Geoffrey Rush who never ceases to amaze. He should give The Fighter's Christian Bale a good run for his money in the supporting actor race.

Please don't think that I thought The King's Speech wasn't any good just because I had some issues with the screenplay. It'll probably win an Oscar. I mean, it's already garnered seven Golden Globe nominations, and that leads the field. The movie got a rousing round of applause from the audience I watched it with. It's definitely worth a watch.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: A
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #113
Thumb... Mostly UpAwards
2010: 6 nominations, 1 win