Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

The biggest lesson to be learned from the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy is never end a film on a cliffhanger if it means the next film has to spend an hour fixing what that cliffhanger set in motion. As you may remember, the last film, Dead Man's Chest, ended with Captain Jack Sparrow meeting his demise at the jaws of the Kraken. We all knew Jack wouldn't stay dead for long, but unfortunately he still stays dead for longer than we'd like. For about an hour we have to wait for our heroes to rescue Jack from Davy Jones's Locker before they get back on track and resume the story of the last film. This opening hour is so dull that the film is unable to recover. By the time it finally does start to get interesting, you've kind of already lost interest.

There are about as many unfulfilled opportunities in this film as there are fish in the sea. While I've found myself to be in the minority, I really liked where Dead Man's Chest was leading us and was expecting this film to deliver on everything the last one promised. Instead this film kind of shrugs off certain stories set up by the last film. Perhaps my favorite element of DMC was Norrington's character arc. I fully expected him to play a big part in the ending, but instead all that character development is thrown out and he gets about five minutes of screen time. Why set him up so perfectly in one film if you don't intend to utilize him in the payoff? It's things like this that will irk viewers, who will certainly walk out of this film wondering "That's it?" It all kind of stumbles to a close instead of racing to one.

Perhaps the one thing to be thankful for, though, was the return to form for Johnny Depp's Jack. The last film really underused him, but here he is his inspired self again. Of particular enjoyment was his descent into madness while all alone in Davy Jones's locker. Not faring quite as well is Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa. He was so well fleshed out in the first film, yet his reappearance here feels wasted. He's neither very funny nor threatening. We never get a real sense why he has been resurrected, nor why he is so chummy with the people he once tried to murder. His addition also helps underline a major problem with the film: we are never sure who is on whose side at any given moment. Every character has their own hidden agendas, and it seems they each are working with both the good guys and the bad guys at some point in the film. It's very confusing, and you are never sure who you should be routing for, so you ultimately don't care who wins in the end.

Still, if you liked the last two films, you'll enjoy moments, especially Johnny Depp. But in the end it all feels like a wasted opportunity. And I suspect a lot of fans will be both confused and angry by how the Will/Elizabeth story is resolved. If I understood it correctly, it was pretty dark, and not something you'd expect from a breezy summer blockbuster.

Shrek the Third

How many movies really, truly deserve a sequel? We live in a time where money is the only driving force for a sequel, while story takes a back seat. There was no reason to continue the Fantastic 4 franchise, but because the first made a lot of money, we're getting another one this summer. Yet on very rare occasions a film actually creatively demands a sequel. One such film was the original Shrek, a film that showed us a world so eclectic that it felt like we only scratched the possibility of what could be done. Shrek 2 delivered in many ways, ways I think we take for granted. How inspired was it to make Prince Charming the villain in this bizarro fairy tale, for example? While the abundance of pop culture references make it feel dated after only three years, it was a largely worth while sequel. But did it demand another sequel?

No.

Watching Shrek the Third, a number of things become clear, not the least of which is the fact that Shrek as a character has become the least interesting in his own franchise. Where we felt invested in his grumpy quest to save Fiona in the first film, here we have nothing to route for; he's a shadow of his former self. When Shrek is told he must either find Fiona's cousin Artie or inherit the throne from her dying father, it comes more out of a need for a plot than from him as a character. When Shrek learns he's going to be a father, he never gets a real chance to come to terms with it. He's reluctant about it, he has a nightmare about it, and then that's it until the end, when he is suddenly fine with it for no reason. Whereas the first film used the plot as a way to examine Shrek, here it uses Shrek to move along the plot.

And what a dull plot it is. While Shrek, Donkey, and Puss in Boots are off finding Artie (a woefully miscast Justin Timberlake, who seems to be a genuinely strong actor in other roles), Prince Charming rallies the Fairy Tale Villains and takes over Far Far Away. In many ways it is a repeat of the basic structure of the last film, complete with a raid on the castle by our heroes in the final minutes. Yet it all feels so much smaller and less significant. Indeed, the Shrek series has gone from refreshing to being as predictable and cliched as the fairy tales it once tried to parody.

The laughs are also almost nonexistent. The most consistent laughs come from Merlin (brilliant casting in picking another Python alum, Eric Idle), who is depicted as a loony hermit. But Merlin is only a very small part of the film. The best gag, though, is once again given to the Gingerbread Man, who sees his life flash before his eyes. That single scene had me laughing uncontrollably and made this film almost redeemable. Almost.

Sadly, the Shrek series went one film too far. Had they been smart they would have ended with two, and then branched off with other tales set in this world. I know a Puss in Boots movie is coming, and that has some potential, as Antonio Banderas seems to be the only returning cast member that is actually giving it his all. But I can't imagine anyone wanting to see more of Shrek as a character, especially considering what the final scene would imply for a fourth film's direction.

Severance

I'm excited to see the horror-comedy Severance finally get a release this Friday. I caught an early preview of this film last fall and was frustrated that I had to wait a half year before I could finally talk to anyone about it. Well now it's here, so let me be the first to say that if you love horror movies, you won't want to miss this one. You aren't likely to find a better mix of chills, laughs, and gore this year.

Planning to spend the weekend working on team-building exercises, the employees of Palisade Defense head up to the company's newly acquired mountain lodge. However, once there they realize something isn't right. What are those wooden structures in the trees? Is there a man following them through the woods? And who exactly left those meat pies in the kitchen? It quickly becomes apparent that someone has it out for them, and they must work together like never before if they want to survive the weekend.

Severance right off the bat does two things that make it better than 90% of other horror movies released in recent years: it centers on interesting adults, and it spends a lot of time getting to know them. This makes for a much more satisfying second half when all hell breaks loose, as we are actually invested in their survival. Yet the film doesn't sacrifice thrills for character development - the first half hour is just as tense as the rest of the film, at times more so as we aren't sure what is going on out in those woods. The film also balances the tension out with genuine laughs. There have been a number of comparisons to The Office in the way it presents its characters, and I'd say that's very accurate. Even when people start dying, the deaths can be pretty funny: I don't think I've seen a funnier decapitation in a film.

Perhaps one of the strongest elements of the film is the villain. He is a very realistic character with real motives for his actions, and that makes him all the more frightening. This is the kind of villain that you actually could stumble across on a camping trip. Also, because I walked into this film with no knowledge of what it was, I was unprepared for a startling twist regarding the killer's identity late in the game. I suspect that the trailers for the film have thoroughly spoiled this twist, so I advise you to avoid them if at all possible, as it's a great surprise.

Severance is the best film of its kind since Shaun of the Dead. It alternates between uproarious jokes and shocking thrills with ease, so much so that at times you aren't sure if you should wince or laugh. These days, when every horror film is either a remake or sequel, it's nice to finally find something that is this unique and fun.

The Ex

Quick, pop quiz: what do you call a movie that is so unmemorable that you forgot you watched it, so bland that you'd have more fun eating vanilla ice cream, and so indistinguishable that it has no trait that lends itself to a meaningful title?

The Ex.

Did you answer correctly? If so, you might not be the target audience for this blandfest.

The Ex stars Zack Braff and Amanda Peet as Tom and Sofia, a married couple that moves to Ohio so that Tom can support his wife and newborn son by working for his father-in-law's ad agency. We are introduced to such quirky characters as Bob (Charles Grodin), Sofia's slightly loopy dad, Don (Donal Logue), the new age boss, and Chip (Jason Bateman), the hot shot handicapped mentor to Tom. However, it quickly becomes clear that Tom and Chip do not see eye to eye, and it's not just because Chip is in a wheel chair. It seems Chip and Sofia once dated in high school, and he may still have a thing for her.

Zach Braff and Jason Bateman were the stars of two of the best, most original sitcoms of the decade, Scrubs and Arrested Development, respectively. So the fact that this feels more like an episode of According To Jim is depressing. There is nothing subversive, nothing original, nothing daring here. Every joke, every plot point feels stolen from something else. There is honestly no reason at all for this movie to even exist, we've literally seen it all before. The film also wastes a surprisingly strong set of actresses. Amanda Peet is reduced to sitting at home playing with the baby and feeling lonely. Amy Poehler seems to be setting up a storyline, but then she mysteriously disappears halfway into the film. And Oscar nominee Amy Adams pops up for no real reason other than to give Sofia an antagonist for two scenes. In short, this film is an assemblage of some great talent and everyone is utterly wasted.

I hate beating up on films like this, because they are essentially harmless. I especially hate beating up on Braff and Bateman, who I truly like quite a bit. But did no one at any point stand up and say "What are we doing here? Can't we fix this?" That kind of laziness is depressing, and the cold hard fact is that there was no reason for this movie to ever be made, and even less reason to see it.

Charles Grodin came out of retirement for this?

Spider-Man 3

I've always felt that the Spider-Man series has been poorly cast, written, and directed from the first installment. I recognise that this opinion puts me in the minority, but I think it's something worth contemplating if you like these movies. Do you like these movies because of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst's questionable acting? Do you like it because of Sam Raimi's dull and repetitive storytelling (how many times does he have to resort to the villain kidnapping MJ in the third act)? Or do you like it because it's Spider-Man, one of the most entertaining comic book characters created? Yes, these films could have been a lot worse (just ask Joel Schumacher), but it seems like everyone involved settled for "agreeable" and not "extraordinary." With the negative reviews and word of mouth coming off of this latest installment, I almost feel like people have finally started to see the flaws that have been there since the first installment; it just took two movies for that initial awe of seeing Spider-Man on the big screen to wear off.

Spider-Man 3 essentially gives us a week in the life of Peter Parker, and it is very episodic. Peter and Mary Jane are having relationship troubles because he is so enamored with his fame as Spider-Man. Harry finally vents his anger towards Peter and assumes his father's alter ego. Flint Marko, a petty thief on the run, accidentally stumbles on a science project in the marshes and gets turned into the Sandman. And Eddie Brock is the new hotshot photographer gunning for Peter's job. These four stories don't so much intertwine as they happen independently of each other. When one story runs dry, they move to the next. When that one goes as far as it can, they move on again. It isn't until the end that all these stories actually come together, so as a result it feels like you're watching multiple movies at once, and not one finely crafted, multi-arching story.

I've already said my piece about Tobey and Kirsten. They were miscast and they don't improve much here. James Franco does alright with his part, but it felt like he was shortchanged after two movies setting up his storyline. But then, that's kind of a running theme in this film: shortchanging any story that isn't Peter and Mary Jane's relationship woes. Thomas Haden Church is well cast as Sandman, giving unexpected depth to an otherwise two-dimensional villain, but sadly 75% of the Sandman's screen time is CGI, so he is largely wasted anyway. Yet the film is almost single handedly saved by Topher Grace, who gives the most entertaining and dark performance of the film. He has more energy and enthusiasm for his part than anyone else, and when he shares the screen with anyone it feels like they are asleep by comparison. He is both slimy and sympathetic, depending on the situation, and I can't help but think what an exponentially better series this would have been had he been cast as Spider-Man.

One plot point I haven't hit upon yet is the introduction of the Symbiote, a black substance that crashes to Earth and attempts to take over Peter. What could have been a dark and interesting story is instead turned into Jim Carrey's The Mask, culminating with a dance number by Peter in a jazz club. I think that's what has bothered me most about these movies: Sam Raimi treats everything like it's a joke, he finds a way to wink at the audience in far too many scenes. So when he asks us to care about the relationship troubles between Peter and Mary Jane, we just don't care. It was all goofy so far, so why should we suddenly act like these people's problems are even half serious?

On a more personal level, I think that what Raimi did to the character of Venom is insulting. Mild spoilers for the rest of the paragraph, folks. Since the first movie, Raimi has stated that he hates Venom and will not make a movie with Venom in it. The studios consistently informed him that Venom was one of the most recognisable and popular villains in Spider-Man mythos, so he finally gave in and included Venom. While not as disrespectful as Shumacher's treatment of Bane in Batman & Robin, Raimi found a way to include Venom as little as possible, as well as guarantee that if he makes a fourth film, he won't have to use Venom again. Raimi set it up perfectly to make Venom a multi-film character in the same way that Harry has been, and this one could have ended with the creation of Venom. Instead, he squeezes Venom in at the last minute just so he can get everyone off his back about it. What makes it all the more frustrating was how cool Venom seemed for those fifteen minutes, and what a great job Topher was doing with the part.

On the up side, the final battle scene is pretty well done, and I liked the way we saw things as if it were being filmed for a TV news broadcast. That made Venom much more frightening, almost like something out of Aliens. Between that and Topher Grace, this film barely rises above being horrible to be just mediocre. I really hope they aren't kidding when they say this is the end of the Spider-Man series as we know it, because I think there is a lot of talented actors and filmmakers out there who could do something really special with this franchise if given the chance.

Mr. Bean's Holiday

Mr. Bean's Holiday is the movie equivalent of a nuclear bomb: the fallout from this bomb will kill any goodwill you might have towards the character of Mr. Bean. It takes a special kind of movie to make you hate other movies, but this one accomplishes that so effortlessly that I was left seriously questioning what I ever saw in Rowan Atkinson's creation in the first place. Simply put, you can't watch this movie and not look at 1997's Bean or the old Mr. Bean TV show the same way again.

Something we should address from the get-go: I was (and in theory still am) a fan of the first Mr. Bean movie. It was an acquired taste, to be sure, but it had a fun combination of slapstick, bizarreness, and British humor. This film throws all that out and tries to start over, taking the sequel in a completely different direction. It gave me a bit of perspective on why I found the original so funny:

1. People realized Mr. Bean was unstable and frighteningly strange, and they called him out on it (and even arrested him for it).

2. Bean had a straight-man to play off of, who was constantly shocked at how idiotic Bean could be.

3. There was an attempt at a plot.

I'm quite sure there was more to it than that, but those three will suffice in helping me explain this atrocity. Most frustrating, people don't seem too shocked by the things Bean is doing. For better or worse, he works as a character because he was always a fantasy character placed in the real world. Here he may as well be living in a fantasy world as no one bats an eye at half the things he does. Which brings me to my next point: there's no straight-man.

How many times in your life can you honestly say "This movie sure could use some Peter MacNicol" with a straight face? Apparently the answer is now "at least once." With no one to play off of Bean's zaniness, it gets pretty excruciating. And let me clue you in to a little secret: Mr. Bean has never been a very verbal character. So with no real sidekick here, it quickly becomes apparent what you're watching: a silent movie. Towards the end he meets up with a young woman who talks to him, but otherwise Bean rarely speaks, even to the young boy he meets and befriends. And last I checked, there wasn't really a market for silent movies.

The plot is nonexistent. Bean wins a trip to France and he decides to visit the beach. Since he's Mr. Bean, it takes him 90 minutes to find the beach. Along the way he helps a kid reunite with his lost dad, and he screws up the Cannes film festival. The first film may not have had a brilliant plot, but it had something to keep you interested. Here it's nothing more than a string of bad skits. And these skits made something abundantly clear: Rowan Atkinson is deeply depressed.

Atkinson always seemed to be having fun with this character in the past. Here he seems tired and sad, like he realized that he's doomed to be Mr. Bean forever. Perhaps that's why this film is so bad: he wants people to stop asking him for more Bean, so he made the worst possible film he could. After this film people will be asking for Bean III about as much as they were asking for another Batman film after Batman & Robin or another Cadyshack after Cadyshack II. Because really, I have not come out of a movie this disheartened in a long time.

RIP Mr. Bean.

Grindhouse

From the scratchy prints, to the fake trailers, to the commercial for your local Mexican restaurant, Grindhouse is more than simply a movie - it's an experience. To see this on DVD is to miss the entire point, which is the fun that can be had in a communal viewing of movies in theaters. Because Grindhouse is made up of so many components and is unlike just about any movie I've ever seen, I'll try and review each part individually, and then summarize the movie experience as a whole.

Planet Terror

Director Robert Rodriguez is something of a modern day John Carpenter in many ways, so it seems fitting that his ode to Seventies horror films would be an homage to the films of Carpenter, particularly Assault on Precinct 13. Everything from the characters to the plot to the music is straight out of Carpenter - and yes, that is very much a good thing.

Following a band of survivors in a small town infested with zombies, Planet Terror does something that few horror movies do anymore: it creates interesting characters. These aren't simply people to be killed off one by one (though that does happen). These people have personalities, and as such it actually fun to watch them interact with each other and their zombie antagonists. Of particular note are El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez), a mysterious drifter who really has a way with weapons, and Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), a former go-go dancer whose dreams of being a stand-up comedian are dashed when a zombie eats off her leg. If that sounds ridiculously campy, you'd be right. And that's where the real fun lies.

The thing about grindhouse films is that most were pretty bad to begin with, and Robert Rodriguez acknowledges that by making his film overly ridiculous. The end result is extremely entertaining, perhaps the most crowd pleasing film of the year thus far. If you love schlocky old horror films but recognize that they have flaws, this film was made for you.



The Trailers

There are four trailers interspersed throughout the films, as well as other small things like commercials and theater advertisements.

The first trailer is for Machete, an Mexsploitation film (which is exactly what it sounds like). Danny Trejo is very amusing as the titular Machete, and his jacket of weapons is hilarious. Overall it might have been the weakest trailer, but it was still great.

Werewolf Women of the SS is a bit unlike the other trailers in that it seems like it knows it is a joke, whereas the others imply their movies are real. It is still very funny, as the whole concept of Nazis and werewolf women is great, and the final surprise cameo at the end of the trailer makes it perfect.

Don't is possibly the funniest trailer, as it relies almost entirely on the voice over to tell you about the film. The number of times the word "Don't" is uttered is hilarious, as is the reveal of the film's title.

Finally there is Thanksgiving. It is so dead on accurate as to how those old trailers were made, right down to the voice over, that it honestly felt like a lost horror movie that someone finally found thirty years later. It also elicited the biggest response from the audience, and for good reason: it's pretty shocking. All in all, the trailers were amazing and probably the most entertaining part of Grindhouse.



Death Proof

Finally, the movie ends with Death Proof, a Quentin Tarantino film. Something you should know is that the point of a double feature is not to give you the same film twice, but to give you two different experiences. As such, this film is a complete 180 from Planet Terror. This is a grindhouse film that isn't in on the joke, at least not much. There are some laughs to be had, but in the end this feels like a film that was actually made to be in a grindhouse, not a spoof.

The basic idea is that a guy named Stuntman Mike uses his death proof car to kill unsuspecting women. It's a great premise in theory, but it is such a slow burn to get to the action that many will be put off, especially after the fast paced first film we already watched. I can understand the need for the slow burn, as it helps you care about what happens to the victims, but I think Tarantino made a mistake in how he went about it. The women talk for long periods of time about things we couldn't care less about. It's almost tedious. Yet when the women do start to die, it is much more shocking because you feel like, for better or worse, you actually kind of knew these people, so seeing them violently dismembered is more shocking than amusing.

Kurt Russell is perfect in the film, balancing both creepiness and charm. Yet he is unlike your typical horror film villain in that, when the tables turn on him, he is no longer brave at all. The women in the film are largely annoying, although that has more to do with the dialogue than the acting. Zoe Bell, who is a stuntwoman, plays herself, and while her acting is nothing special, her stunt work is amazing. That's kind of the problem with Death Proof: it has some of the worst elements in Grindhouse (the dialogue), but also some of the best. The car chases and crashes are phenomenal, and ultimately make the whole thing worth it.




Overall

Overall, this was an amazing experience of a film. It's a shame that it has failed so miserably at the box office, as it is a true crowd pleaser. I'd almost say that you shouldn't see it unless you see it in theaters with an audience, as that's where a lot of the enjoyment comes from. Still, I suspect that this is the kind of film that will be showing at midnight movies for years to come every Halloween. That is ultimately what it was probably made for, just like the grindhouse pictures it is worshiping.