Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest

B

I'll be the first to say that I liked the first Pirates of the Carribean movie and the theme-park ride of which it was based (I remember going to it twice, despite the long queues) and I think quite highly of the sequel to the movie which they spawned. But then I like all these three things based on different merits, so it's a pain for me to answer the one question which people will be asking the most - is this a good movie? The theme ride was just awful fun without any risk of heart failure. The first movie was good in that it offered a swashbuckling adventure story that didn't make any sense at all - but it was huge and grand, and it had Johnny Depp in his maiden role as Captain Jack Sparrow. And now the second movie arrived, and standing on its own, it's decent. More ambitious, bigger and less crappy. It's also less the Captain Jack Sparrow that we all loved.

The movie begins with Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Kiera Knightley) in jail for their previous daring attempt to let Capt. Jack Sparrow (Depp) escape a noosey death. Now Sparrow is roaming the seven seas, being hunted by his past - apparently he sold his soul to Davy Jones (Bill Knighy) in return to giving him his ship, and his pay was due. Only one thing could save him - finding the Dead Man's Chest, which contains something which would give him leverage to negotiate with Davy Jones. At the same time, to rescue Elizabeth from the gallows, Will is given a deal by the Royal Navy to obtain the Sparrow's compass, so they could use it to find the chest for their own use. If this all sounds damned convulted, it is. But unlike the first movie, at least they more or less add up and amount to something.

As the movie is rather plot heavy, the first hour was primarily used for exposition and ground work - putting the people where they ought to be before letting the cannons loose and swords slashing and parrying. And just when we came to be restless, the pace picked up swiftly and time - a lengthy 150minutes of it - flew. If you liked the action in the first movie, Dead Man's Chest will not disappoint. Most impressive was a three way sword fight which involved a key and a giant water wheel. The entire sequence lasted half and hour, deftly combining surehanded photography, atheletic action and physical comedy. It's funny how probably the biggest sequence in the movie, that with a giant squid, fell flat.

The one thing which disappointed me the most was how Jack Sparrow became so much less fascinating and joyful to watch. In the first movie, his half-drunk-but-still-ingeniously-cunning mannerisms were matched by his concotion of one liners which uplifted the whole movie. Dead Man's Chest not only made him quite a bore (in contrast to the first film), but made him - believe it or not! - unaffable. Johnny Depp still got the walk and talk right, but the character wasn't walking and talking right... and we miss the old Jack Sparrow.

All in all, though I'm still rather sore about the part about the old captain, Dead Man's Chest stands on its own as a solid adventure. It has a deep plot which is understandable at least and special effects which do not disappoint (I'm curious how much of Davy Jones was CG and how much real action). As can be guessed, the movie ends with a cliffhanger which promises a more complete experience (if not riskily strenuous) adventure once the trilogy is completed with Pirates of the Carribean: Davy Jones' Locker.
~

Superman Returns

B

I have come to learn not to trust tabloid critics, especially in Singapore. It's funny how they can become so predictable in applauding movies that are different. I don't know if it's the pressure to reflect public opinion, but if that's the case, they are seriously underestimating the intelligence of the public. Shame on the woman - from Straits Times who shall remain anonimous (because I can't remember her name anymore) - who gave Van Helsing 3.5 stars out of 5. And while every newspaper and magazine on the island are heralding Superman Returns with 4-star reviews, I think I got better opinion from a teenage cinema goer who I overheard saying, while we got out of the cinema, "I'm still disappointed with Superman."

It's not that the movie is bad, it's just that it's not THAT good. Sure, expectations were and still remain high. Man of Steel is back, and he's now stronger than ever thanks to modern-day pyrotechnics and Warner Brother's eagerness to shower this dearly beloved project with greens - and every penny spent could be seen on the screen. While money can buy watchable fare, it cannot afford brilliance.

It's not like the movie didn't show potential. Superman Returns began boldly. Instead of repeating the story from scratch, it acts as a continuation. Superman (Brandon Routh) has disappeared from the public for five years, venturing into outer space looking for his birthplace Krypton. During this time, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has finally tracked down the Fortress of Solitude and took possession of Jor-El's crystals. Superman's return reveals that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) in engaged, and is raising a son. So while Superman/Clark Kent tries to mend his broken heart, he must stop Lex Luthor's evil plot in using Krypton's advanced technology against man kind. It's pretty much a fair fight, Lex Luthor's brains versus Superman's brawn.

That's the beginning. But the movie is a jumble of immiscible plot elements, which while do not create gaping holes, make the experience less wholesome. There's the constant preoccupation with Superman's celebrity status and his coverage by the Daily Planet. It's something that we've seen in Spiderman and more recently Fantastic Four. The movie also spent a lot of time dwelving into the romance between Superman and Lois Lane, who is apparently still in love with the Man of Steel. This aspect was cold as fish on ice. Clark Kent and Lois Lane barely spent more than a few minutes of dialogue with each other, which was pathetic. Without this, we're then cut off from Superman - who doesn't really talk much to anyone. Characters do stupid things now and then, the first time I noticed in a superhero show.

Superman Returns' saving grace is it's look. This is a gorgeous movie. It may not feature a giant ape, but it's no less sophisticated or impressive. The special effects here aren't superflous or showy, like in the Star Wars prequels, but are done with flair and a certain amount of style. From Superman's mega-exhilarating first saving-the-day coup, which involved a passenger plane and a space shuttle(nuff said), to Superman taking Lois up flying, just like old times, the entire movie looks marvelous.

Newcomer Brandon Routh isn't Christopher Reeves, but he wasn't really given much chance to show depth anyways. But he's got charisma, so that's good. Kate Bosworth played Lois Lane just as how she was written, ultra-driven, high-strung, unlovable. Kevin Spacey deserves credit for finally giving a Lex Luthor worth fearing. Gene Hackman was more a funny villain, and Smallvile's Michael Rosenbaum became too talky.

Brian Singer traded his X-Men hat for Superman Returns, leaving Brett Ratner, initially attached to Superman, to helm X3. I say it might have been better had no swapping of head-wear whatsoever been done. Superman Returns, claimed to be light-hearted by Singer, is anything but. Brett Ratner would have been able to make a Superman that doesn't take itself seriously (it's 2.5-hour running time shows this).

But I still enjoyed Superman, even if it wasn't great as expected. Batman Begins is still the best superhero movie to me. And if I, and my appreciably grumply follow cinema goer sound overly critical about Superman Returns, I do blame the press, even if just a little bit!

p.s. Roger Ebert: one word. Sequels.
~