PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: AT WORLD'S END

Director: Gore Verbinski (The Mexican, The Weatherman, The Pirates 1&2)
Starring: John Depp, Keira Knightley, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom

I believe it was in my review of Pirates 2 that I spent some time talking about the standard formula for blockbuster sequels. Hollywood currently believes that the cineplex crowd wants bigger, bigger, bigger in their sequels, and Jerry Bruckheimer (uber-producer of the Pirates franchise) is the most "Hollywood" of the Hollywood producers. He wallows in bigger. He loves nothing more than bright lights, big explosions, loud bangs. Pirates 3 is even brighter, even bigger, even louder than before. Damn.

Let's take a look at the Pirates franchise to see if it's suffering from sequelitis, shall we? First, the characters: Are these characters that we grew to love from the first film bigger, broader, more 'important' now? Let's take Keira Knightly, shall we? In the first very good movie she was the daughter of a colonial governer, in love with a boy, almost believeable as a person. Now she's an action star, master swordswomen, and literally the "King of the Pirates" Johnny Depp goes from loveable loser pirate, to one of the 9 'Pirate Lords' of the whole world! Wow, quite a promotion.

How about the plot? Is the plot more "all-encompassing" this time around? Well, in the first great movie, we have a search for cursed gold, some ghosts and a couple in love. There was mystery in the unexplored world of Pirates and magic. It's small, rousing, and wonderful. This time around we have the gods of the sea, pirate kings, stunts only super-heros could perform. Oh and there's also para-sailing. No crap. Para-sailing. In the climax, they save themselves from a giant maelstrom created by the goddess of the sea by para-sailing. It's idiotic.

I won't bother too much with the plot of this film. It's generally gotten a bad rap for being convuluted and confusing, and it absolutely is both, but for my money I don't care nearly so much about it's complexity as I do about its absurdity. It's very much a bigger plot, but it's nowhere near to a better one. If you care, it involves getting Johnny Depp back from death, a 100 foot tall sea goddesses trapped in the body of a mortal, and a giant (and bad) action sequence to end it all.

For all of my complaining, though, I must admit that it's not a total failure as a movie, just a nauseatingly average one. Johnny Depp is still interesting, although he has a smaller role in this film. The wonder of the original Pirates world, a magical version of 17th century colonialism, still shows up now and again, although it's mostly very overdone here. The story is marginally interesting, just not good. The action is vaguely rousing, but so overdone as to be annoying. The film has a lot of problems. It's been fairly poorly reviewed. It will also make a lot of money. The producers will say that that's what matters (public acceptance). I may have heard this all before ...

Standouts: Not much. Big, crappy sequel.
Blowouts: Overdone plot, characters, action, special effects. Oh, and para-sailing.

Grade: C-

OCEAN'S 13

Director: Stephen Soderbergh (Ocean's Eleven, Traffic, Sex Lies and Videotape)
Starring: Clooney, Pitt, Pacino, Damon, Cheadle, and a lot more

I liked Ocean's Twelve. I'll admit it. I am not ashamed. Yes, there were some parts (ahem ... Julia Roberts) that I found nearly idiotic. Nonetheless I thought that movie got a bad rap by the critics. It wasn't great, but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as they claimed.

I say this because Ocean's Thirteen thouroughly listened to the critics who panned Twelve. The story returned to Vegas, like the original. The plot followed a single casino caper, like the original. The film was Vegas cool, rather than Euro-cool. There isn't an iota of creativity in Ocean's 13. It's obvious, even cosy for those who liked the original film.

For my money I enjoyed Twelve because it did not follow the standard Hollywood formula for sequels (bigger, Brighter, LOUDER). It was a solid film that I think could live on its own. No it didn't measure up to the original (hence the critics panning it), but if it hadn't existed as a sequel I think it would have gotten solid reviews. I tend to believe that many critics like nothing more than panning previously successful people and projects. Generally speaking you will only see truly mean reviews when someone tries to tackle an important subject (meaning serious) and it fails, or a director follows up a success with an average film. As long as you make safe dumb movies, you will usually get at least decent reviews. Try anything new though, and Whammo!

Anyway back to Thirteen. Guess what? It's safe. It's not dumb exactly, but it's certainly not what you'd call creative. It's Hollywood sequel all the way. We've got the first plot ... amped way UP. It does have some funny moments. It does have some of the same fun comraderie of the previous pictures. It does have an enjoyable plot. It's decent. It's also safe, and yes, it probably is a little dumb.

Here the new bad guy is played by Pacino as a hotel mogul opening his new monstrosity on the Vegas Strip. During its construction he double-crosses his partner Reuben (Eliott Gould), who ends up in a stupor after a massive coronary attack. The Ocean gang decide to elicit some revenge on Pacino and concoct a scheme to scam the hotel out of milllions (okay, hundreds of millions), while simultaneously ensuring that the property is poorly reviewed in the Michelin guide, or AAA hotel guide (or whatever review board it was in the film).

As an aside, don't you think it's a little bit funny that the world's greatest culinary review guide has a big, puffy, cartoon Michelin man on it's cover? I know I do.

Anyway, the gang seems to make it up as they go, as one obstacle is overcome a new one presents itself. They have to put down a strike at a Mexican factory (seriously, and it was pretty darn funny too). They have to create a fake earthquake (in a plot concept I found far more absurd than anything in Ocean's Twelve). Even the French bad guy from Twelve makes a brief appearance and is again beaten in a battle of double-crosses.

It's not a bad movie. I enjoyed it. I was entertained. I also realize that this isn't anything special.

Standouts: There are still moments of the comraderie, humor and slick coolness from the original.
Blowouts: It's a bit dumber. It's a bit less beleivable. It's a bit sillier. I also didn't like the pacing of this film.

Grade: B-

KNOCKED UP

Director: Judd Apatow (40 Year Old Virgin, Produced Anchorman, and Ricky Bobby)
Starring: Katherine Heigl, Seth Rogan, Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann

According to RottenTomatoes.com Knocked Up is the best reviewed major release of 2007 (so far). Of course, by the same source Knocked Up is a better reviewed film than The 40 Year Old Virgin, the most recent (and truly much better) film by Judd Apatow. What does this tell me? Well, it tells me that film review ain't an exact science. I think it also says that it's easier to get comfortable with a style or subject the second time around, because Knocked Up shares a lot of similarities with the Virgin, everything from the adolescent humor to the sweet characters, even many of the same actors appear in both films. Truth be told, it's simply not as good a film, but by no means does that indicate it's a bad one.

Knocked Up (just like Virgin) is primarily a story of an adult-aged adolescent, not wanting to grow up, but eventually learning that it's a better place. Both films are slaps in the face of the millions of man-children refusing to leave the comfort and ease of their youth. Okay, maybe they're not slaps exactly, maybe they're just nudges, light nudges. Because both of these films really do seem to long for those youthful moments while at the same time saying it's even better to grow up and take some responsibility.

Knocked up begins with the Heigl and Rogan characters drunkenly hooking up after a night of celebration at the local dance club. Yes, there is a big bit of disbelief to suspend on this. I mean Katherine Heigl, she of the blondness and hotness, and Seth Rogan, he of the un-chisled chubbiness, hooking up? I don't think so. The fact that this is a silly comedy you're watching makes this concept go down a little easier, but wow, is that ever a lot to swallow.

Anyway, and this should be no surprise to anyone who has read the title of the film, Heigl soon finds herself pregnant and tries to start a relationship with the lovable loser Rogan, who does have some charisma and sweetness down beneath his off color way of talking. After the baby is made, the rest of the film is just a step-by-step journey toward acceptance of responsibility for Rogan, and of course Hegl convincing herself that the chubby loser can be a quality father of her child.

So, after describing the film you might think the story revolved exclusively around Seth Rogan as the chubby, pot-smoking man child who impregnated some random hottie, but it doesn't. Even though his character is the one driving the story arc, in a lot of scenes he felt relegated (slightly) to the background for me. In large part I think this is because Rogan doesn't quite have what it takes to be the center of a feature. There are certainly dissenting opinions on this, and in major reviews, but for me I just don't think Rogan was star-quality. At all. He was fine in his role, but I felt he was upstaged by Heigl and Paul Rudd in nearly every way. Hmmm, doesn't upstage seem like a bad word choice in a movie review. I mean, what's the film equivilent of "upstaging"? "Outcameraing'? Anyway, my point is even though the Hegl character didn't have much 'growing' to do in this film, she was hardly pushed to the periphery in the script. She did a fine job in her first starring turn, and in many ways this feels like her film.

I will say that this movie is funny. And since this is a comedy, that would seem to be pretty important. I didn't laugh nearly as much as in Virgin, or Wedding Crashers, or even Borat, but I did laugh. So there you go.

Standouts: More sweet comedy from Apatow.
Blowouts: Nothing truly failed, although I didn't feel Rogan was the best choice for the lead.

Grade: B