Movie reviews (including pirates of the caribbean)

You Were Expecting, Maybe Superman? (Printable Version , E-mail to a Friend )
Not from our world-weary sage. How about an art film blockbuster?
by Cory Cheney

I’m really not into the summer blockbuster thing. There’s just too much style and not enough substance. Summer movies just aren’t any good.
 
Sure, they’re fun to watch. They’re entertaining. But they’re often just sort of . . . hollow.
 
I’ll never say never. There might come the day when a summer movie blows me away. When that day comes, I’ll give the film the accolades and hyperbole it deserves. Until then I remain bitter and dubious.
 
So. How was Superman Returns? You guys seen it yet? You sending me some reviews? I’m curious to see what you thought. This is kind of fun, actually. I’m almost getting to pretend like I’m not a movie critic. Almost. Don’t kid yourself. I don’t ever want to go back to Gen. Pop.
 
Before I get into this week’s summer blockbuster, I gotta talk to you about a cool little documentary that’s going to be playing at The Circle July 9, 11 and 13 (check www.circlecinema.com for showtimes). The doc’s called Stolen and it’s about an infamous art theft that took place in Boston in 1990.
 
Purloined Art
 
On March 17 (St. Patrick’s Day, Boston’s full of distracted, celebrating, drunk Irish—so what perfect time) of that year, two men posing as police officers subdued the security guards at the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum. In an hour and a half, the thieves removed 13 paintings from the frames and then vanished into history. Among the paintings were two Rembrandts and Vermeer’s “The Concert,” which is thought by some to be the most valuable painting in the world.
 
Most consider the heist the largest in modern history. It’s been 16 years and none of the paintings have been recovered.
 
An internationally recognized art theft investigator, Harold J. Smith, devoted the last years of his life to unraveling the mystery. Stolen follows Smith on his quest.
 
At 75 years of age, wearing an eye patch and bowler hat and sporting a fake nose and numerous bandages from 50 years of battling skin cancer, Smith is a compelling protagonist. He’s lively, intelligent and focused. Through him, the film “works” the case; we tag along as he follows leads, even when those leads lead him into conspiracy theory territory.
 
It’s interesting stuff, to be sure. Just as compelling as say, The Thomas Crown Affair. The story, not the documentary.
 
Meanwhile, the film also delves into the history of the museum from which the paintings were stolen, and its famous creator, Isabella Gardner. A visionary, she went to great lengths to put great paintings by masters in her collection. Some she even had smuggled out of Italy.
 
Much of this history is conveyed in old movies of Venice layered with voice-overs by Blythe Danner (as Gardner) and Campbell Scott (as her buyer, Bernard Berenson).
 
The film slows down, however, when it sidetracks to talk to art experts or Gardner experts who either wax poetic on the virtues of the missing paintings or get all misty-eyed discussing the greatness of Gardner. One guy, in particular, has testimony about the greatness of the museum but comes off sort of corny.
 
Don’t get me wrong. You do come to see what these people see in the missing works, particularly the Vermeer. It’s an incredible painting.
 
None of these elements mesh together particularly well. It’s as though the tale succeeds in spite of the filmmaker by virtue of being an interesting subject. The camera work has no style and there was really nothing to give me the sense that the filmmaker actually knew what she was doing.
 
Again, that doesn’t stop the film from being interesting.
 
The most successful part of the documentary is the feeling you get toward the end when you realize Smith is not, in fact, going to find the paintings. You feel frustrated that there’s not going to be any satisfactory conclusion to the story, which I imagine is the point of the whole thing. You’re supposed to be frustrated they can’t recover these paintings.
 
While the film could’ve been made better, the story is good, the interviews are good and the conclusion is as it should be. It’s definitely worth checking out if you’re into art or art theft.
 
And speaking of art theft (and speaking), on July 9, Steve Ramsay, Philbrook’s director of security, will discuss the film, his experience at Philbrook and other famous cases. That’s right, a film and a discussion. Not your standard summer fare, eh?
 
Right. On with it then.
 
Arrgghhhh!
 
I checked out Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest early for you guys because I know you needed to know if it was any good as soon as humanly possible. I had to take off half a day of work and drive to Oklahoma City to do it, but no effort’s too small for you guys. Sacrifices have to be made. You see, I live in Stillwater. This whole world economy thing, the internet connecting it all is a great concept, but it really doesn’t always apply to rural Oklahoma.
 
Okay. You got me. I just wanted to see it. And early so I could brag to all my friends that I’d seen it early and they hadn’t, much like I previously did with all three of The Lord of the Rings films.
 
I can’t help it. Ever since I was a little kid, I’ve liked pirate stuff. My best friend had a kick ass Weeble pirate ship (complete with island and treasure chest). I’ve always been drawn to the Jolly Roger. Blame it on The Goonies. Whatever. I like pirate flicks. Yar.
 
So whether or not Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was any good, I don’t really care. I could watch that flick once a week. Ghost ships, pirates, sword fights, canons and a bit with a dog . . . good stuff.
 
What I’m saying is that I have a certain predisposition toward decently made pirate flicks. Something like Cutthroat Island doesn’t count. Because it sucked.
 
It’s like this. In everyday conversation, when someone finds out I’m a movie critic, they invariably ask me what’s good. In reply, I ask what kinds of movies they like to watch. If they’re into action movies and I just saw a really good drama, I’m not going to recommend the drama. I try to weigh a film against other films like it. Got it?
 
This is the same thing, only backward. The genre appeals to me, so I’m more likely to give it a good review (not fantastic because it’s a summer movie, as previously discussed). Knowing this about me helps you help yourself. Savvy?
 
So about Pirates of the Caribbean . . . if you liked the first one, you’ll like the second. And hate it, but I’ll get to that second part in a minute.
 
When last we left Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), Will and Elizabeth were helping Capt. Jack escape from death by hanging.
 
It’s been awhile since then. It’s raining and Elizabeth is on her knees, surrounded by empty seats and soaked wedding decorations. She’s crying. And she’s crying because Will’s been arrested for helping Jack escape.
 
Governor Swann (Jonathan Pryce) had opted not to punish Will and Elizabeth for their assistance, but the new antagonist, Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) has other ideas.
 
He wants Jack’s broken compass. He’s prepared to offer Jack a pardon and Will a bunch of money to get it. He makes no offer of pardon to Will or Elizabeth, but he sort of hints around about it. Will assumes that’s a given and dashes off after Jack.
 
Jack has more problems than losing his compass. Thirteen yeas prior, he made a deal with Davy Jones (Bill Nighy). Davy would pull the Black Pearl up from the bottom of the sea and Jack would get to be captain for 13 years. After that, Jack had to come crew Davy Jones’ ship--The Flying Dutchman.
 
The cliches’ are thick as a pirate’s beard.
 
Jack, who’s into that self-preservation stuff, is after the means to wiggle out of his bargain. After all, he was only technically captain of the Pearl for two or three of those years, thanks to Barbossa and the rest of the mutinous crew. The means are the key to Davy Jones’s chest. Inside the chest is Davy Jones’s heart. Kill the heart . . .
 
Savvy?
 
Elizabeth, no thanks to her father, escapes custody and sets off after Will. She’s not one to sit by and let her men do the fighting, after all.
 
From here on out, it’s pretty much high seas mythical pirate mayhem and double crossings. Which is good.
 
So what’s different this time out? Lots. First off, Dead Man’s Chest isn’t as funny as The Curse of the Black Pearl. Does it have some laughs? Sure.
 
But the situation is grimmer. Jack’s fighting for his life, after all. He’s a bit more of a scoundrel this time about. I mean, what do you expect? Pirate.
 
Will is less naïve, less idealistic, but still headstrong. Elizabeth is more impulsive. Does that sound like character development? I think it does.
 
Davy Jones is actually pretty cool, even with an octopus for a head. Nighy does a good job with him and he’s the best new addition to the cast, although Stellan Skarsgard isn’t too bad as Will’s father, Bootstrap Bill.
 
Pretty much everyone else from the original is back as well. You get appearances by Jack’s crew, the guy with the wooden eye and his sidekick, Commodore Norrington (Jack Davenport) and even Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush).
 
Basically, there’s a whole ton of stuff going on. More mythical ships, giant sea monsters, cannibals . . .
 
Oh, yeah, best of all, there are no stupid one-liners. You remember Keira’s line about the corset from the first flick? Yeah, nothing like that here. Again, a good thing.
 
Then there’s the ending. All I’ll say about the ending is that you’re going to be very unhappy when you realize the third installment of Pirates of the Caribbean debuts summer 2007. That’s a year from now for those of you keeping score.
 
In summation, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest: a pretty good time as far as summer movies go. I’ll be buying it on DVD. Cause, yar.
 
Stay out of the heat. Visit a movie theatre.