Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) review

In 2001, the first installment of the Harry Potter film series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Philosopher’s Stone overseas), officially kickstarted a great new franchise adapted from the beloved, best-selling book series by author J.K. Rowling. One full decade later, the series officially concluded with the second part of the adaptation of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and for fans of the franchise, it seemed as if this was the end of the adventures within the Wizarding World… or so we thought. Just a few years later, it was announced that Rowling would be writing a new series of films inspired by the in-universe textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a guide to the various creatures of the Wizarding World that was published for real in 2001. And while it’s safe to say that some may have initially questioned the idea of a film series based around a textbook, Rowling would soon go on to reveal more details about the new franchise. Specifically, it would be a prequel that took place 70 years prior to the events of Harry Potter and would focus on the adventures of the textbook’s author, Newt Scamander. The first installment of this series, which shared the name of its source material, hit theaters in November 2016. It served as Rowling’s first screenplay and saw director David Yates return to the franchise after previously helming the final four installments of Harry Potter. Upon its release, the film proved to be yet another success for the franchise, garnering solid reviews from both critics and audiences and grossing over $800 million worldwide, thus paving the way for this year’s sequel, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, which delves further into the Wizarding World of the 1920’s. And while it does end up suffering a bit from a case of ‘middle chapter syndrome’, there’s still just enough of the things that have made this franchise a staple of pop culture to satisfy its devoted fandom. 

Three months after aiding the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA) in capturing the notorious dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), zoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) returns home to England to continue what he does best by looking after all the unique magical creatures that he comes across. However, Newt is soon placed on watch by the Ministry of Magic for his ‘unauthorized’ field trip to America and is pressured into assisting their Aurors (one of them being his older brother Theseus (Callum Turner)) in their efforts to hunt Grindelwald again when he ends up escaping from custody. Newt also learns that Grindelwald is specifically looking for Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), the disturbed young man who, in the previous film, was revealed to be possessed by a parasite known as an Obscurus. And although he was supposedly killed by MACUSA, it is revealed that he survived and has traveled to Paris in the hopes of discovering his heritage. While he initially refuses to help the Aurors, Newt is ultimately convinced to go on his own accord by his old professor from Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), whose unique relationship with Grindelwald prevents him from joining in on the action. Thus, Newt, with the aid of sisters Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) Goldstein and Muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), who’s revealed to have kept most of the memories that he had prior to his alleged memory wipe, embark on a journey to ensure that Credence isn’t swayed by Grindelwald’s dark cause. For as they find out, Credence’s supposedly pure-blood heritage potentially makes him the only one who can possibly equal Grindelwald and his greatest adversary, Albus Dumbledore.

Now admittedly, Crimes of Grindelwald doesn’t always maintain the exact same quality of writing when compared to previous entries in the franchise. While some have criticized it for having a ‘minimal’ plot, I’d say that this film’s biggest issue lies more with its ending. For the most part, this film is clearly meant to be the entry in the series that is primarily intended to set up plotlines that will play a far bigger role in future films, and while I don’t mind the ways in which it sets up those films, it ends up resulting in its own finale being a bit too anti-climactic. Simply put, the big confrontation with Grindelwald that the marketing campaign has been alluding to doesn’t really happen, and what is ultimately there is taken care of rather quickly, which also means that not every plotline and bit of character development is given as much attention as it should be. But even with that in mind, that doesn’t completely take anything away from all the other great things that are in this film. While it does stumble a bit by the end, the rest of the film is very well-paced even if the plot is admittedly a lot simpler compared to some of the other films. And yet, even with that said, this film still manages to maintain what is easily J.K. Rowling’s greatest strength as a writer, her knack for world-building. Once again, this film does a phenomenal job when it comes to creating all the new locations and magical creatures that it brings to the Wizarding World thanks in large part to the always terrific production design and stunning visual effects that only manage to get better with each new film.

But as I’ve noted in the past, easily my favorite aspect of this new franchise is its main protagonists AKA the main quartet of Newt, Jacob, Tina, and Queenie. Even with the expectations spurred from the iconic trio of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, these four proved to be just as endearing as the series’ original leads. Plus, despite where some of the plotlines in this film end up taking them, their chemistry is still just as strong as it was in the first film. Most notably, Newt and Jacob continue to be a wonderful lead duo, with Eddie Redmayne continuing to maintain Newt’s incredibly sympathetic nature and Dan Fogler once again providing the film with many of its best humorous moments. Redmayne and Fogler also continue to have wonderful chemistry with Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol as sisters Tina and Queenie, respectively, resulting in some of the film’s best emotional moments. As for the new additions to the franchise’s ensemble, easily the most prominent is Jude Law taking on the role of a young Albus Dumbledore. And while it should be noted that Dumbledore doesn’t factor into the plot as much as one would expect, Law still very much shines in the role, nobly following in the footsteps of Richard Harris and Michael Gambon. Other new additions like Callum Turner as Newt’s brother Theseus, Zoe Kravitz as Newt’s former classmate (and Theseus’ fiancé) Leta Lestrange, and Claudia Kim as the transforming Maledictus known as Nagini (who, of course, ends up becoming Voldemort’s snake companion in the Potter books/films) are solid as well.

And then there’s easily the film’s biggest question mark, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. Ever since he was cast in the role, there has been a ton of controversy because of it. For starters, some fans weren’t too thrilled with the first film’s reveal that Grindelwald had been impersonating Colin Farrell’s Percival Graves, with many arguing that Farrell would’ve been a much better fit in the role. And while Depp’s role in the first film was ultimately quite minor, some predicted that this would eventually lead to yet another instance of his increasingly controversial over-the-top style of acting. But, of course, the biggest controversy to come from Depp’s casting was due to his infamous domestic abuse case in 2016, with many condemning the decision for him to be cast in a franchise that was developed by a woman who’s clearly been known to disapprove of this kind of behavior. And yet, at the risk of attracting some negative attention from those who were against his casting… Depp surprisingly manages to impress in the role of Grindelwald. Contrary to what some may have feared, he never really delves into the same over-the-top acting that he’s been known for these past few years. Instead, he establishes a suitably reserved but incredibly intimidating antagonist who can recruit others to his cause without much issue, and while he does suffer from the story seemingly saving his biggest moments for future films, Depp does make the most out of the material that he’s given. In short, while I want to make it perfectly clear that I’m not ‘defending’ any of Depp’s recent actions, it should be noted that, despite what some may ultimately claim, none of this film’s shortcomings are primarily because of him.

At the time that I’m writing this, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the only entry in the Wizarding World saga to attract a mixed-to-negative reception from critics… and yet, it’s seriously not as bad as some of those critics have been claiming. To be clear, though, I’m not saying that it’s perfect because, in the opposite scenario of what happened with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, this film does fall victim to the dreaded ‘middle chapter syndrome’. While I don’t dislike any of the ways in which the film sets up future installments of the franchise, along with how it often ties itself back to Harry Potter, there are a few plot threads and bits of character development that would’ve benefitted from having more attention given to them. But despite all this, everything else that’s great about the Wizarding World franchise is still on display here. J.K. Rowling’s world-building is still second-to-none and the main characters are just as endearing as ever while being joined by some solid newcomers. And yes, as controversial of a claim as it’ll undoubtedly be, Johnny Depp doesn’t phone it in whilst portraying the title role of Grindelwald. I understand why some have been hesitant about this film because of his involvement, but I hope that it doesn’t completely turn people away from seeing it given those who were involved that obviously weren’t tied to Depp’s incidents. In other words, Depp’s involvement has clearly cast an incredibly dark shadow over this new series that, unfortunately, it might not be able to overcome. But as for me, I’m still very much a staunch defender of the Fantastic Beasts franchise and I look forward to seeing it continue.  

Rating: 4.5/5

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) review

When it comes to some of the most famous authors of all time, Agatha Christie is undoubtedly one of the most legendary in that field. Over the span of several decades, the late English author was well-known for writing several classic mystery stories, so much so that she currently holds the record as the best-selling novelist of all time with over 2 billion copies of her work sold. And in her first novel, 1920’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles, readers were introduced to arguably her most famous creation, the Belgian detective known as Hercule Poirot. Poirot went on to appear in 33 of Christie’s novels, her 1930 play Black Coffee, and over 50 of her short stories. But as for the most famous story that he ever appeared in, that honor goes to Christie’s 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express, in which the detective with the well-groomed mustache found himself dealing with, as the title suggests, a murder mystery onboard the titular Orient Express. This particular Christie story has already been adapted to the screen several times over the years, including a star-studded 1974 film adaptation directed by Sidney Lumet and an episode of the long-running British TV series Agatha Christie’s Poirot. But now Poirot is back on the big-screen once again in a brand new take on this iconic story, with Sir Kenneth Branagh taking on the role of the legendary detective. He also serves as the director of this new film which, like the 1974 adaptation, also features a star-studded cast. And overall, despite some of its shortcomings, this new version of Murder on the Orient Express does manage to be a solid adaptation of its source material.

As the film begins, we are introduced to the man himself, Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), the most famous detective in the world. The year is 1933 and despite Poirot’s plans to go on holiday after his most recent case in Jerusalem, he receives a telegram demanding that he return to London to take on a new case. To get there, Poirot’s friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) offers him a compartment on the luxurious Orient Express, which Bouc has just been appointed the director of. Whilst onboard, Poirot is joined by an eclectic group of passengers, including young governess Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), American socialite Caroline Hubbard (Michelle Pfeiffer), and immoral businessman Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp). Ratchett ends up approaching Poirot and asks him to be his bodyguard as he fears that he’s in danger. Poirot refuses but, soon enough, Ratchett is found dead in his cabin from several stab wounds. When the Orient Express is forced to make an unscheduled pit stop due to an avalanche, Poirot quickly begins to investigate the cause of Ratchett’s death. Deducing that one of their fellow passengers was responsible for the crime, Poirot works tirelessly in order to figure out which one of them is the murderer. And as he soon finds out, this case ends up having some noticeable connections to a highly public kidnapping/murder case that had occurred a few years back.

Now, just a quick disclaimer; at the time that I’m writing this, I have not read the original Murder on the Orient Express novel. I also haven’t watched any of the previous adaptations of this story, which of course includes the last major feature film adaptation from 1974. And from what I’ve read online, comparisons between this film and its various predecessors have been quite common. Thus, given what I just said about my general unfamiliarity with the source material, unfortunately, I can’t really add much to that discussion. What I will say, though, is that Branagh does do a good job in making this film an engaging murder mystery, and because I didn’t really know anything about the plot before seeing it, it allowed me to go into the film without already knowing the final outcome. With that in mind, however, I am aware that some have been rather mixed on the ending, not because it changes anything (from what I’ve read, it seems like Branagh stayed generally faithful to the source material) but more in the case of how Branagh handles it as director. Some have felt that the ending diminishes the impact of the final reveal by way of how Poirot ultimately responds to it. And despite this being my first major experience with this classic murder mystery story, I will admit that I did find that the ending didn’t quite have the impact that it wanted to leave on the audience. Still, at the very least, the build-up to the final reveal is well-handled and the film is well-made on a technical level, benefitting especially from some great cinematography from Branagh regular Haris Zambarloukos that was shot on 65 mm film a la Dunkirk.

As noted earlier, the 1974 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express featured an all-star cast that included the likes of Albert Finney in the role of Poirot, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, and Sean Connery just to name a few. The same applies to this new version as well, with names like Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Judi Dench, and Johnny Depp… and again, that’s just to name a few. And, of course, Kenneth Branagh not only directs the film but stars in it as well as the one and only Hercule Poirot. Branagh does a great job in the role, excellently conveying both Poirot’s wisdom and eccentric nature, two traits that very much help him when it comes to solving cases. As for the rest of the cast, they’re all great as well but they admittedly don’t have as much to work with compared to Branagh. Now, to be fair, it can be argued that this is just a consequence of being a story in which there are 12 primary suspects. Still, aside from a select few like Gad and Ridley’s characters, most of their roles in the film are basically just limited to one or two major scenes that they share with Poirot, who interrogates them all one at a time. Ultimately, though, if I had to pick the biggest standouts of the supporting cast, that would include Michelle Pfeiffer as the headstrong Mrs. Hubbard, Judi Dench as the pushy Princess Dragomiroff, and Leslie Odom Jr. as the often put-upon Dr. Arbuthnot.

So as I’ve made it clear, this film basically served as my introduction to Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express. As such, I can’t really say much about how this version of the story compares to other adaptations of it because simply put, I haven’t seen any of them. With that said, though, I am aware that some have been critical of this adaptation for not really doing anything new with the source material. And, of course, some have also taken issue with the ending, which I’ll admit is an argument that I do sort of agree with in terms of how it kind of lessens the final resolution of the main conflict. Still, for the most part, I found this to be a solidly made mystery thriller. While the plot does maintain a ‘slow burn’ style of pacing throughout, there is never a dull moment in this film. And like many of Branagh’s films (e.g. his remake of Cinderella and the first Thor film), this film does benefit from some solid production value, namely in regards to the cinematography, and an excellent ensemble cast. In short, if you’re like me and you’re not too familiar with the original source material going in, at the very least this film serves as a nice way of introducing newcomers to Christie’s work. And given that the film ends with a nod to another Poirot story, the potential is there for a sequel or two adapting other classic Christie novels. But if you are familiar with this story and the previous adaptations of it, this adaptation may seem a bit more questionable given everything that’s come before it. Overall, though, this film does succeed when it comes to being an entertaining popcorn flick that’s worth checking out on the big screen.

Rating: 4/5

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) review

Would you believe that it has been almost 15 years since the original Pirates of the Caribbean film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, hit theaters in the summer of 2003? Back then, it seemed like a major gamble for Disney given that it was a film based off one of the company’s most iconic ‘dark rides’. However, to the surprise of many, it became one of the biggest hits of the year. It fared greatly with both critics and audiences and, thus, launched one of the biggest film franchises in recent years. It would see three sequels released from 2006 to 2011 and while all three of these films did not fare as well as the first did in terms of critical reception, they were still monster hits at the box-office, with films 2 and 4 both grossing over $1 billion worldwide. And now, 6 years after the release of On Stranger Tides, this long-running franchise is back with a new installment, complete with a fitting subtitle that pays homage to one of the classic lines of dialogue from the ride; Dead Men Tell No Tales. While many of the primary cast and crew members from the previous films are back again, not the least of which being Johnny Depp in the lead role of Captain Jack Sparrow, there are also plenty of new faces as well, including those behind the camera. The film is directed by the duo of Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, a pair of Norwegian filmmakers who are best known for their 2012 historical drama Kon-Tiki, which earned them a nomination for Best Foreign Film at that year’s Academy Awards. And together, they manage to bring some new life into this iconic franchise. Sure, some of its perennial flaws are still apparent but, through it all, the fun spirit that the series has been known for is still there in spades.

During his youth, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) had a notable run-in with Armando Salazar (Javier Bardem), a Spanish Naval Captain who hunted pirates all over the world. After taking command of the ship that he was on, Jack managed to evade Salazar, whose ship, the Silent Mary, was destroyed when it ventured into a perilous region known as the Devil’s Triangle. However, instead of this incident resulting in their deaths, Salazar and his crew were resurrected as ghostly pirates unable to step foot on land. Thus, years later, when he and his crew finally find themselves able to escape from the Devil’s Triangle, Salazar begins his quest for vengeance against the man who ruined his life. This forces Jack, who has recently been struggling to find a ship and maintain a loyal crew, to head off on an expedition to find the only thing that can possibly stop Salazar; the mystical relic known as the Trident of Poseidon, capable of lifting any curse that has befallen a sailor on the open seas. To do so, Jack ends up in an unlikely alliance with two young adventurers who are also looking for the Trident; an eager astronomer named Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario), who is the only one capable of deciphering the map that can lead them there, and Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites), the son of Jack’s old friends Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) Turner who seeks to use the Trident to free his father from the curse that has forever bound him to be the captain of the Flying Dutchman after the events of At World’s End.

One of the best things that I can say about this film is that it seems like the filmmakers did manage to succeed, for the most part, in their attempts to harken back to the first Pirates of the Caribbean film in terms of its overall tone and, perhaps most importantly, not succumbing to some of the major issues that critics have had with the sequels. Now, admittedly, if one were to really focus in on this film’s writing, they may indeed find some of those same issues that many say plagued the sequels. Sometimes, it does feel like the film is trying to juggle a lot of main characters at once, to the point where some don’t get much to do in the overall plot. And, sometimes, there are some plotlines that either come straight out of nowhere or just straight up don’t go anywhere (sometimes both). But, despite all this, the film still manages to not feel as bloated as something like the almost three-hour behemoth that was At World’s End. This is the shortest film in the series to date at just 129 minutes long, and that is very much a good thing. Heck, to the film’s credit, there are even a few genuinely effective emotional moments in this amidst all the wacky hi-jinx. And just like every other film in the series, this film’s technical merits are perhaps its biggest strength. Yes, a lot of the action is more CG-based this time around compared to previous films but there are still plenty of exciting action set-pieces to be found in this film that are backed by solid visuals and a fantastic production design. Say what you will about these films in terms of their writing, but for a series that’s become rather infamous for its expensive budgets (the previous two films had budgets of over $300 million each; this, thankfully, is only $230 million), they sure don’t waste that money on the screen when it comes to the technical stuff.

Obviously, Johnny Depp’s had a rough run as of late, whether it’s due to his recent (and highly scandalous) divorce or the several box office flops that he’s been in as of late. However, back in the role that earned him an Oscar nomination back in 2003, he still manages to be one heck of an entertaining screen presence. Now, to be frank, at this point you’re either still a fan of Jack Sparrow or you find him to be super annoying. As for me, I’ll admit that I am still a fan of the character, who’s still just as delightfully kooky as ever but never to the point where it personally got too annoying to me. Geoffrey Rush is also great, once again, as Jack’s old friend/foe, Hector Barbossa, while even managing to get a few subtle moments thrown in amongst some of his more exaggerated ones. This is due to one crucial plot-point, which I can’t mention here because that’s spoiler territory, that works mainly because of his overall presence in this series. As for Javier Bardem, he brings the right amount of creepiness to the role of the film’s main villain, Captain Salazar. Admittedly, though, he doesn’t really factor into the plot as much as some of the franchise’s other villains, meaning that, unfortunately, he doesn’t get much of a chance to stand out. But, on the bright side, the new protagonists in this film are welcome additions to the cast. Kaya Scodelario brings a great feistiness to the role of Carina while Brenton Thwaites gets to work with the solid emotional arc that is Henry trying to save his father, even though the film technically doesn’t focus on that plotline too much. And on that note, for those who are eager about the return of Will and Elizabeth Turner after a whole decade… you may want to temper your expectations because they really don’t factor into the plot that much. Orlando Bloom’s only in the film for three minutes or so and Keira Knightley isn’t given any lines in her brief cameo. They don’t even have a scene with Jack Sparrow, which I felt was rather disappointing.

All in all, I really enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. While I don’t think that it’s the best entry in the series (i.e. not as good as the first three installments), I do think that, at the very least, it’s an improvement over its predecessor, On Stranger Tides. I mean, to be perfectly blunt, this film probably isn’t going to win over all of those who lost interest in the franchise due to its polarizing sequels. At the end of the day, this film does still share some of the narrative hiccups that its predecessors had, like the occasional over-complication of the plot. Still, I cannot deny how entertaining the film still managed to be, which has really been the case of all the Pirates films even with their various flaws in mind. From a visual perspective, this film is just as well-made as its predecessors and, overall, I’d say that it did its job of attempting to return to the simpler affairs of the original Pirates film. Now, last time, during my Pirates of the Caribbean retrospective, I noted that this film’s primary trailer implied that it was going to be the ‘Final Adventure’; in other words, the last installment of this series that’s been around for nearly 2 decades. However, co-director Joachim Rønning suggested that this wouldn’t be the case and… yeah, the film does end on a post-credits scene that is intent on setting up a future installment. Thus, it looks like we’ll probably be getting another installment of this series sometime in the future, and if there is another Pirates film on the way, then you can bet that I’ll be there when it comes out. Because even though the overall hype for this franchise may not be what it used to be back when the original trilogy was released, I’d argue that these are still very much a series of ‘event films’ that are worth seeing in the theater.

Rating: 4/5

Pirates of the Caribbean Series Retrospective (2003-2011)

Argh, me mateys! It’s time for another retrospective on a classic franchise that sees new life this year with an upcoming installment. And today’s franchise is a classic of this current era of franchises; one about the swashbuckling scallywags and their adventures on the high seas! “Yo-ho, Yo-ho, a Pirate’s Life for Me!” Heh, okay, I won’t be talking like a pirate throughout this entire post. But today, we are talking about the Pirates of the Caribbean films, one of the biggest film franchises in recent years… and an unexpected one at that. Because, really, the idea of turning a theme park ride into a film may seem like a crazy one depending on who you ask. That was clearly the case in 2003, when Disney decided to do a live-action adaptation of Pirates of the Caribbean, inspired by the company’s iconic theme park ride of the same name. The original Pirates of the Caribbean ride first opened in March 1967 at Disneyland in California and was the last attraction that Walt Disney himself primarily supervised before his death in December 1966. Obviously, it was a big hit with guests and the ride has since been established at multiple Disney parks around the world, arguably becoming Disney’s most iconic ‘dark ride’. Still, it seemed like a stretch when the first Pirates film was released in the summer of 2003 given the arguably absurd nature of what it was; a ‘theme-park ride’ based film. However, to the surprise of many, it was a smash hit with both critics and audiences, resulting in a few more sequels that were released over the next few years. And while the sequels did not fare as well in terms of critical and audience reception, they still proved to be monster hits for Disney at the box-office, even when considering that some of them ended up being some of the most expensive films ever made.

And this year, the series returns to the big screen for the first time since 2011 with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Supposedly, it’s the final installment of the franchise, if based only on the tagline ‘The Final Adventure’ seen in the film’s primary trailer. However, recent comments from co-director Joachim Rønning suggest that isn’t the case. After all, I’m sure that we all thought that At World’s End was the final film… and then On Stranger Tides seemed like the last one. And yet, here we are now with the fifth installment; who knows where it’ll go from here? Whatever happens, though, I am looking forward to this new installment of the franchise. I’ll admit that I generally like each of the four previous films. Granted, the sequels do have their flaws, but they also have great moments in them that ultimately make them worthwhile in the end. I may not have seen any of the original 3 films in theaters (I almost did see the first film back in 2003 during a double feature at the Rustic Drive-In along with Finding Nemo, but my family decided to leave a few minutes in because some of us were getting tired) but I do still fondly remember all the hype surrounding their releases. For one thing, I remember going on a Disney cruise right around the time when Dead Men’s Chest came out in 2006. Not only did they have the film playing in the ship’s theater (again, though, I didn’t see it then), but they also had the actual Flying Dutchman ship used in the film anchored at Disney’s private island, Castaway Cay. Sure, the hype for this franchise isn’t what it used to be but it does go to show how big the original trilogy really was. And so, in honor of the new film’s release, it’s time to embark on the seven seas alongside the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow as we look at the previous four installments of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Savvy?

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (2003)

We start things off, of course, with the original Pirates film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, released in 2003. As noted in the intro, there was some uncertainty surrounding this film given its status as a film that was based off one of Disney’s most iconic attractions. To put this entire situation into perspective, this was released one year after the infamous adaptation of The Country Bears, which was both a critical and commercial disaster. 2003 also saw the release of another poorly-received ‘Disney theme park’ adaptation, The Haunted Mansion. But, to the surprise of many, Pirates of the Caribbean (which, technically, was released before Haunted Mansion) proved to be one of the biggest critical and commercial hits of the summer and rightfully so as it’s a highly entertaining pirate adventure. Sure, perhaps it’s a tad bit overlong, with a runtime of over two and a half hours. And sure, maybe some of the CG effects, namely whenever the villainous pirates reveal their skeletal forms, have become rather dated compared to the effects of its sequels. Still, through it all, there’s never a dull moment in this film and, as would become common with each film in the series, the film has excellent action set-pieces, especially the sword-fighting sequences. Johnny Depp debuted one of the most famous protagonists in recent years in this film as the rogue and eccentric pirate, Jack Sparrow, and does a fantastic job in the role, so much so that he even earned an Oscar nomination for it. The rest of the cast is solid too; Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are both excellent as the series’ main romantic leads, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, and Geoffrey Rush is enjoyably over-the-top as main villain Hector Barbossa. Thus, The Curse of the Black Pearl still holds up as a fun and adventurous film that truly surprised us all upon release.

Rating: 5/5!

“You are without a doubt the worst pirate that I’ve ever seen!” – Commodore Norrington

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST (2006)

The main thing to note about this franchise is that only the first Pirates film was a commercial AND critical success. While each of the sequels were successful commercially, they didn’t fare as well with critics compared to the original. That all started with 2006’s Dead Man Chest, once again directed by Gore Verbinski and produced back-to-back with the third film. And, to be perfectly blunt… this film gets too much of a bad rep. Sure, there are some flaws here and there. You could say that this is where one of the main issues that critics have had with the series starts to emerge; that the plots begin to get overly complicated with too many characters to follow. Plus, there are quite a few ridiculous moments throughout the film, like during the finale when ‘literally’ everyone begins to fight each other over control of the titular ‘Dead Man’s Chest’, which contains the heart of main villain Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) that can be used to control him. But, again, never a dull moment thanks to excellently choreographed action sequences, including an epic finale in which the crew of the Black Pearl battles Davy Jones’ ‘terrible beastie’, the Kraken. The cast is still great as before; the returning cast members slip back into their respective roles with ease and there are some memorable new characters as well, including Stellan Skarsgård as Will’s long-lost father ‘Bootstrap’ Bill and, as mentioned earlier, Bill Nighy as the series’ absolute best villain, the creepy tentacled pirate that is Davy Jones. Heck, the film also deserves some credit for not entirely ending on a ‘happy’ note a la Empire Strikes Back, while also culminating with an awesome cameo that further sets up the sequel. So, in short, no I don’t think that this is better than the first film. Still, I’d argue that it ain’t too far off. Thus, it’s easy to see why this became the first film in the series, and the third film EVER, to gross over a billion at the worldwide box-office. Clearly, it was one of the biggest films of its time.

   

Rating: 4.5/5

“What about Jack? I’m not leaving without him!” (*sees Jack pursued by the cannibals*) “Time to go!” – Will Turner (though I must say, it’s more hilarious in the trailer, where he’s just like “Never mind, let’s go!”)

Also…

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END (2007)

When it comes to the argument that these films are overstuffed and overly-complicated, At World’s End is most likely the primary film in the series that receives the most flak for this. It’s the longest film in the series with a runtime of nearly three hours and was also the most expensive film ever made at the time, becoming the first film ever to have a budget of at least $300 million. And, admittedly, in some cases the critics are right. It IS a bit overlong and there are some instances where the plot gets overly complicated, namely during the second act where characters begin to repeatedly double-cross one another in scenes that admittedly make the film start to drag. However, once again, when this film does something great, it’s fantastic. For a film that was the most expensive film ever made at the time, it does live up to its status as a $300 million film. This is easily the biggest film in the entire series in terms of its scale, set design, visuals, and action sequences and it’s all fantastic from a technical perspective. Case in point, if you can make it through the hefty runtime, the film ends with what is easily the series’ best finale to date, as our heroes battle Davy Jones and his crew in the middle of a raging maelstrom, complete with an impromptu wedding between Will and Elizabeth ministered by Barbossa. Thus, like Dead Men’s Chest, I think At World’s End also gets too much of a bad reputation. I mean, to be fair, if I had to rank these films, admittedly this one would probably rank last amongst the original trilogy. It is somewhat of a chore to sit through at parts with a runtime that damn near rivals the Lord of the Rings films. However, I’d argue that it’s worth it for one of the best finales of any film from this past decade, making this a solid conclusion to the original trilogy of Pirates films.

Rating: 4.5/5

“Mr. Gibbs, you may throw my hat if you like!” (*Gibbs throws Jack’s hat*) “Now go and get it!” – Jack Sparrow

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011)

While it seemed like At World’s End marked the end of the series, it instead returned four years later with a new installment, On Stranger Tides, inspired by a 1987 book of the same name by author Tim Powers that also influenced the popular Monkey Island series. This time around, directorial duties went to Rob Marshall, best known for directing musicals like Chicago and Into the Woods. And that experience in theater does help, in a way, when it comes to choreographing the action sequences. Like its previous installments, this film’s biggest strength is through its technical merits; cinematography, set design, visuals, etc. Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are great, as always, and Penelope Cruz is a welcome addition to the franchise as Jack’s old flame Angelica. Ian McShane is also great in the role of the film’s imposing villain, the infamous Blackbeard. However, the film does run into a problem in terms of its overall scale, at least when compared to previous installments. After the large-scale efforts in At World’s End, this film is decidedly scaled down by comparison. This is, ultimately, both a good and bad thing. On one hand, it means that the film isn’t trying to do as much in terms of story and plot. But, at the same time, it’s still a vastly smaller scaled entry in the series, complete with a finale that’s more on par with the first film’s finale in terms of its overall scale. It truly makes you wonder how this film ended up surpassing its predecessor as the most expensive film ever made. You think At World’s End’s $300 million budget was crazy? Apparently, this film’s budget was over $400 million. And, truth be told, this doesn’t feel like that kind of film. It feels more like a $140 million film which, for the record… was the budget for the first film. Still, at the end of the day, On Stranger Tides is another enjoyable, albeit flawed, entry in this iconic series.

Rating: 4/5

“Did everyone see that? Because I will not be doing it again!” – Jack Sparrow (after jumping from a tall tower before it explodes)

And those are my thoughts on the Pirates of the Caribbean films. I recognize that I might be in the minority when it comes to those who do like these films (along with my pal Alex Corey; be sure to check out his reviews of these films over on his site), but I’d argue that these are still entertaining films despite some of their biggest flaws. Still, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal thoughts on these films. And you can expect a review of Dead Men Tell No Tales sometime this week. Until then, remember…

“This is the day you will always remember as the day you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow!”

Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) review

(Disclaimer: The following review of Alice Through the Looking Glass will not be addressing the recent domestic abuse scandal surrounding its star Johnny Depp. Just like the sexual abuse lawsuits that Bryan Singer dealt with prior to the release of X-Men: Days of Future Past, Depp’s domestic issues are not connected to this film in any way.)

In 2010, Disney released what would become their first big ‘live-action reimagining’ of one of their classic animated films; Alice in Wonderland. Directed by Tim Burton, the film was a ‘sequel’ to the original story of the same name written by Lewis Carroll (which of course served as the basis for Disney’s 1951 animated classic) and followed a teenaged Alice as she returned to the world of Wonderland, or to be more specific, ‘Underland’, as it’s referred to in the film. Upon its initial release, the film received mixed reviews, attracting praise for its visual style but also criticism for its writing. But when it comes to its box-office performance, that’s another story because the film actually managed to join the billion-dollar club. I’m still in shock that it was able to do so given its extremely polarizing reception, though from what I hear this was primarily due to the fact that A.) since it was released in March, there wasn’t much competition in terms of family-friendly releases and B.) it was also released in 3-D, which was still a big deal at the time thanks to James Cameron’s Avatar unlike nowadays where it rarely gets attention anymore. So because of it, we now have a sequel in the form of Alice Through the Looking Glass, though like the previous film, this film is only loosely inspired by the story that shares its name (in this case, Carroll’s 1871 sequel, Through the Looking Glass). Tim Burton isn’t in the director’s chair this time around, however. Instead, in his place is James Bobin, who most recently helmed Disney’s last two Muppets films; 2011’s The Muppets and 2014’s Muppets Most Wanted. And like the first Alice, this film has been subjected to generally mixed to negative reviews from critics. It’s clear that when it comes to these films, people either really love them or really hate them. As for me, I’ll admit I lean more towards the former. Because while the film definitely isn’t perfect, there are still some genuinely good things about it that make it worth seeing.

The film opens up three years after the events of the previous film, which ended with young Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) taking up her late father’s business in overseas trade. However, when she returns home to London, she learns that her ‘former’ fiancé, Hamish Ascot (Leo Bill), has taken over his father’s company and plans on buying her father’s ship. Amidst all of this, Alice soon finds herself summoned back to the world of Underland to help deal with a pressing matter regarding the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp). She learns that the Hatter has been in a funk recently, claiming that the rest of his family, who supposedly died during the Jabberwocky attack (as seen in the previous film), is still alive. With his health slowly deteriorating, Alice, following the suggestion of Mirana the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), travels to the castle of the physical manifestation of Time itself (Sacha Baron Cohen) in order for her to travel back in time with the use of his ‘Chronosphere’ device, which powers all of the time in Underland. In doing so, she finds herself traveling through time, back to when the Hatter, the White Queen, and the rest of their Underland friends were young, in order to save the Hatter’s family from their supposed doom. But in doing so, Alice not only runs amok of Time himself but also finds herself once again crossing paths with Iracebeth the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), who seeks to use the Chronosphere herself in order to change a certain event in her past that caused her to become the big-headed (figuratively and literally) tyrant that she is today.

Like the first film, this film definitely deserves recognition for its visuals and overall visual style. Clearly a lot of time went into making all of the film’s intricate visual effects and they do look really nice. With that said, however, like the first film, some might find all of the film’s CGI, which was pretty much done in the same way that the Star Wars prequels were by having the majority of Underland done in CG save for the human cast members, to be a bit overkill at times. And admittedly the writing is about the same as it was in the first film, tending to be rather messy and sometimes even a bit meandering at times in terms of its plot. However, even with that in mind, the film does at least have one major advantage over its predecessor and that is that it carries a much more pleasant color scheme in terms of its visuals. Whereas the previous film was very much a Tim Burton film with all of its gothic designs, this film has a much more vibrant look to it as a whole, which is definitely an upgrade if you ask me. Plus, the film doesn’t pull any of the rather extreme punches that the original did that did make you question if it was right to be rated PG, namely infamous scenes in which the Dormouse takes out one of the Bandersnatch’s eyes and another scene where Alice crosses the Red Queen’s moat on the heads of her unfortunate victims. So because of that, this film will definitely be easier for kids to handle than the first film. And at the very least, regardless of the film’s scriptural flaws, there really are some good messages for younger audiences, like being true to yourself and your friends and the fact that it’s okay to be a little weird sometimes. There’s actually even a few rather effective heartfelt moments.

A good chunk of the film’s heart and strong messages are exemplified by its main female lead Alice. While in the first film she spent a considerable amount of time questioning the fact that she was in Underland, resulting in her being a bit too passive of a protagonist at times, this film’s Alice is much more assertive and as a result actually becomes a pretty great ‘role model’ for young women. There’s a really great sense of confidence to her, not only in how the character is portrayed this time around but also in Wasikowska’s performance. As for Johnny Depp as the Hatter, it’s exactly what you would come to expect nowadays from Johnny Depp whenever he steps into a role that allows him to don quirky costumes, makeup, and/or accents. At this point you’re either fine with it or you’re really sick of it; me I don’t mind it. Plus, the Hatter is much more toned down this time around, though admittedly that’s primarily because he does spend most of the first half of the film in a muted state. In fact, this film definitely feels a bit more toned down in terms of how campy some of the performances are compared to the original. Though with that said, Helena Bonham Carter still relishes her role as the Red Queen, camping it up whenever she’s onscreen. The same goes for Sacha Baron Cohen as Time, although not as much as Carter. In short, I can say that, at the very least, the ensemble cast is a bit stronger this time around, mostly as a result of Bobin not cranking these characters’ personalities up to 11, which is sort of what Burton did with the previous film.

So here’s the deal with these live-action Alice films. As both of their critical receptions clearly suggest, these two films very much have their critics and quite a few of those critics have been very vocal in expressing their dislike of them. However, at the same time, it’s also clear that these films actually do have a pretty decently sized fan-base. This really can partially explain why the first film did as well as it did at the box-office and while this film hasn’t been doing anywhere near as good as the first film did from a commercial standpoint, I can tell that there will still be quite a lot of people who are going to like this film. And as someone who did like the first film, I can see why. Yes, the film does share some of its predecessor’s issues, namely in terms of the writing. Plus, like before, critics of CGI are no doubt going to take issue with the film’s very extravagant use of CG. However, this film really isn’t as bad as its low 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes may suggest. Because despite its flaws, the film definitely deserves merit for its impressive visuals. Visually speaking, this is easily one of the best-looking films of the year. And in some ways the film actually does improve on its predecessor, namely in regards to a much brighter color scheme and a much more confident lead performance courtesy of Mia Wasikowska as Alice. So in short, if you weren’t a fan of the first film, then suffice it to say this film ain’t gonna win you over because it’s very much a sequel to Burton’s original film and fans of the books in particular are most certainly not going to be pleased with how the world and its characters are being portrayed. But if you’re someone who was a fan of the first film, then I’m sure you’re going to like this film just as much.

Rating: 3.5/5

(Closing Note: On a sad note, this film serves as the final performance of Alan Rickman, who reprises his role from the previous film as Absolem the Caterpillar (now a Butterfly). The reason why I didn't bring him up in the review is because, well, he actually isn't in the film that much. He only appears in the scene in which Alice first returns to Underland.)

Black Mass (2015) review

Contrary to what recent critical and commercial buzz may suggest, Johnny Depp is technically still one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. Consistently one of the highest-paid actors in the industry, he’s the star of Disney’s biggest live-action film franchise, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, with the series’ fifth installment set to come out in 2017. Not only that, but he has also had some solid critical/commercial hits over the years as well, many of which came with his most frequent collaborator Tim Burton. It’s just that in recent years, Depp has hit a bit of a rough patch as he has been a part of some highly notorious box-office bombs, including ‘The Lone Ranger’ and this past January’s ‘Mortdecai’. Because of this, his newest film, ‘Black Mass’, is being hailed by many as a ‘return to form’ for Depp. In it he plays, as the trailers promote, ‘one of the most notorious gangsters in U.S. history’, former South Boston crime boss James ‘Whitey’ Bulger. The film covers the story of how Bulger ended up becoming a key informant of the FBI through the workings of one of his old friends, agent John Connolly, resulting in an ‘unholy alliance’ that lasted for nearly two whole decades. Depp is most definitely the star of the show here in this highly engaging crime thriller that may not reinvent the wheel when it comes to the crime film genre but is still a well-made biopic about one of the most infamous criminals that America has ever had to deal with.

In 1975, James ‘Whitey’ Bulger (Johnny Depp) is in charge of all organized crime in South Boston as the head of the Winter Hill Gang while his younger brother William ‘Billy’ Bulger (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a member of the Massachusetts Senate. However, Bulger constantly faces opposition from the Angiulo Brothers, who run crime up in the North End and are intent on taking over his turf. Around the same time, John Connolly (Joel Edgerton), an old childhood friend of the Bulger brothers, returns to Boston having now become an agent with the FBI. Looking to take down the Angiulos as well, Connolly approaches Bulger with the idea of him becoming an informant for the FBI. That way, not only can the FBI finally take down the North End gang, who have been frequently flying under their radar for years, but Whitey will also be able to get rid of his North End rivals once and for all. Whitey agrees to the deal but is instructed by Connolly and the FBI to not commit any crimes or murder anybody. But, as things turn out, Bulger does not follow these orders as all as he continues his business as usual, expanding his empire while Connolly keeps the FBI off his tail. Soon enough, Whitey’s increasingly violent actions start to put their relationship in hot water once the FBI finally starts looking into their corrupt affairs.

‘Black Mass’ primarily focuses on Bulger’s ‘alliance’ with the FBI from 1975 to 1990. This film doesn’t cover anything about his time as a ‘fugitive’ after he got exposed by the media. Instead, his eventual fate of finally being apprehended in 2011 is relegated to the film’s final moments. But that’s totally fine because ‘Black Mass’ is still a very compelling crime drama even if it doesn’t tell ‘the whole story’. And ultimately the main reason why this film is so captivating is due to how fascinating of a character Whitey Bulger was. As noted in the film’s opening narration, despite all that he did over the years as the ‘kingpin’ of crime in South Boston, he was also a beloved figure in his neighborhood. Cold and quiet but also menacing and ferocious, you can never take your eyes off of him whenever he’s on screen, especially in scenes where he’s threatening someone. Admittedly, the film is a rather straight-forward effort as far as the gangster genre is concerned, not really pulling a lot of ‘major’ punches in terms of its story. But at the end of the day, I don’t hold this against the film that much because this is truly meant to be an acting showcase. As a director, Scott Cooper definitely knows how to get great performances out of his cast.  

As it has been advertised, Johnny Depp is absolutely fantastic in this as Whitey Bulger. While I personally feel that Depp’s been doing fine as an actor in recent years in terms of his performances, even when taking into account all of the very eccentric roles that he has played, I will concur that this is one of the best performances of his career. Not only does he completely disappear into the role of Bulger, but he also perfectly captures Bulger’s intimidating demeanor to the point where he legitimately does become quite scary at times. But while Depp has been getting the most attention for his turn as Bulger, Joel Edgerton is equally outstanding as John Connolly. Whereas Bulger is cold and intimidating, Connolly is more conniving and corrupt, loyal to the Bulger brothers but willing to break the law to help them out. The film actually does a really nice job of balancing out the roles of these two men and Edgerton more than holds his own against Depp. As for the rest of the cast, they’re just as excellent with their roles in the film ranging from major, like Cumberbatch as Billy Bulger and Rory Cochrane and Jesse Plemons as two of Bulger’s associates in the Winter Hill Gang, to minor, like Corey Stoll as the FBI agent who heads the investigation into Bulger’s criminal activities and Dakota Johnson as Bulger’s first wife, who’s only in the film for about five minutes or so, disappearing altogether after a crucial scene in which their son ends up dying from Reye Syndrome.

‘Black Mass’ is definitely one of those films that makes me want to read more into the true story that inspired it; in this case, the tale of Whitey Bulger and his time as an FBI informant. And to be perfectly frank, considering that I’m from New England, this does make the story even more intriguing to me given how big of a deal this must have been back in the day. Of course the main selling point of the film is Johnny Depp’s transformational and ferocious performance as the infamous New England mob boss. It’s easily one of the best performances of his career but another career-best performance comes from Joel Edgerton as the man who allowed the ‘alliance’ between Bulger and the FBI to happen in the first place, John Connolly. At this moment, they’ve become some of the biggest frontrunners for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively, at next year’s Oscars. Heck, if we’re talking ensemble awards, this film also features an excellent ensemble cast as well. I can’t really go as far as say that ‘Black Mass’ is one of the all-time greatest gangster flicks, nor is it one of my absolute favorite films of the year, but it’s definitely a solid film that held my interest from beginning to end that, above all, proves that Johnny Depp isn’t just a one-trick pony as some may feel that he is nowadays given his recent films.

Rating: 4.5/5

Transcendence (2014) review

‘Transcendence’ serves as the directorial debut for Wally Pfister, but while this may only be his first foray into directing, Pfister has already made a name for himself as one of the best cinematographers in the business. In the past decade, his cinematography work has been nominated for four Oscars and he finally won the Oscar for Best Cinematography in 2010 for his work on ‘Inception’. While he has worked on a few other films in his career, including ‘The Italian Job’ and ‘Moneyball’, he has mainly been known as director Christopher Nolan’s go-to cinematographer, having done all of his films since ‘Memento’ (excluding the upcoming ‘Interstellar’ due to his work for this project). Nolan himself serves as a producer for the film so it’s safe to say that there’s a lot riding on this one. Pfister has long-worked with one of the best directors in Hollywood so perhaps with this, he could successfully move into directing and become the next Nolan. After all, this film’s premise seems very much in line with what you might expect from a Nolan film. Unfortunately though, this ends up being one of the most disappointing films of the year.

Artificial Intelligence researcher Will Caster (Johnny Depp) has been striving to develop a machine that can achieve technological singularity, in which A.I. would progress to the point where it becomes smarter than any human on the planet, resulting in radical civilization changes. While Will is hard at work at accomplishing this goal with the help of his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and their friend Max (Paul Bettany), an extremist group known as R.I.F.T. (Revolutionary Independence From Technology) launches a series of attacks on numerous A.I. facilities. Will himself gets shot by one of its members and while he does survive the shooting, he and Evelyn learn that he attracted radiation poison as a result of it and will eventually die in a few weeks. Looking to save him, Evelyn decides to upload Will’s consciousness to a computer and with Max’s help, they are successful, allowing Will’s spirit to live on so that he can continue his work. However, soon Will starts to gain a bit too much power, and Evelyn is soon forced to consider whether or not to shut him down before he becomes way too powerful.

Going in, the biggest problem regarding whether or not this movie would turn out any good probably had to have been whether or not the science behind it was really smart or really dumb (or in the case of the former, potentially even a bit ‘too smart’). But in the end, that’s not this movie’s biggest problem. Its biggest flaw is that it is really, really boring. This is one of those films where nothing really happens and yet strangely enough things do happen in regards to the plot. This film does have an intriguing premise and does raise some interesting questions about whether or not technology should advance to the point where it becomes superior to us and potentially could even become a major threat to us. The story they present here is a good case of that. It’s just that as a movie, ‘Transcendence’ runs at a very slow pace. As for the actual science within the film itself, I can’t really say whether or not it’s handled well because I can admit that I’m not that big of a computer expert. But for the record, I just want to recount something that happened after I saw this film in the theater. Some guy seated a few rows in front of me apparently began to rant about the film once it was over. So with that in mind, I’m guessing that at the end of the day, this premise wasn’t really handled that well.

But there are good things in this film. One good aspect in particular is the cinematography. While Pfister isn’t the cinematographer here (that duty instead belongs to Jess Hall), this film really has some gorgeous visuals so it’s clear that Pfister is an expert when it comes to getting some excellent shots, even when he isn’t directly behind the camera. Also, this movie does have a good cast; however, the characters themselves are rather bland. In some cases, some members of the cast are woefully underused; particularly Nolan regulars Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy who really don’t get anything to do here other than relaying exposition. Of this cast, two performances stand out. The first is Johnny Depp, who gives one of the more subdued performances of his career and that’s a nice refreshing change from what we usually see from him these days. Also, that’s saying a lot considering that for most of the movie he’s just on a computer monitor. The other standout is Paul Bettany because while, like I said, most of the characters are rather flat his character Max has the most depth out of any character in this film. One could argue that perhaps he should have been the main character. He isn’t, but for what it’s worth, he does a very good job here.

I really hate to say it, but ‘Transcendence’ ended up being really disappointing and that is really sad considering who is involved here. Wally Pfister is a great cinematographer and I do think that he has potential to be a great director. However, he probably should have gone with a different ‘first film’ as ‘Transcendence’ is, ultimately, not that good. Despite a very intriguing premise, the film itself is very boring and that’s kind of ironic considering that things technically do ‘happen’ within the film. The big problem here is that there are a lot of moments when the film begins to drag, and the characters are also pretty flat as well so we are not really emotionally attached to any of them. The cast does a good job, especially Johnny Depp and Paul Bettany, but in the long run they can’t save this train-wreck of a film and from what I hear, the original script by Jack Paglen was much better than what ultimately became of it on screen. What happened to that script? Well, we might never know.

Rating: 2/5

The Lone Ranger (2013) review

When ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl’ was released in 2003, no one really expected a film based off of a Disney ride to be that much of a hit. But, to everyone’s surprise, it was, and it soon led the way to three more sequels (two of which have passed the billion dollar mark at the box office). This year, the main crew behind the ‘Pirates’ series (star Johnny Depp, director Gore Verbinski, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio) reunite for a modern adaptation of ‘The Lone Ranger’, a series that got its start as a radio program back in the 30’s, which later spawned a TV show and a couple of movies. It seems like the filmmakers are hoping that this film will start up a new film franchise the same way ‘Pirates’ did a decade ago. However, with most critics giving the film negative reviews and a less than stellar performance at the box office so far, it’s probably unlikely. However, this film is actually better than what critics have been saying right now. Sure, it’s not perfect, mainly because of length and script issues, but it’s a fun movie that manages to get by despite its flaws.

The story, as told by an elderly Indian named Tonto (Johnny Depp) to a kid in 1930’s San Francisco, takes place in Texas in 1869 and follows John Reid (Armie Hammer), a lawyer who ends up being recruited to the Texas Rangers by his older brother Dan (James Badge Dale). John joins his brother and their fellow Rangers on a mission to find and capture notorious outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). The Rangers end up getting ambushed by Cavendish’s men and are all killed, including Dan. John, however, survives and after meeting with the younger Tonto, learns that he is a ‘Spirit Walker’, a man who has ‘been to the other side’ and cannot be killed in battle. Looking to enact revenge on Cavendish for the death of his brother, John teams up with Tonto (who is also looking to find Cavendish for his own reasons) and takes up the persona of the masked vigilante, ‘The Lone Ranger’.

The biggest problem this movie has is that it’s too long. The movie is about 149 minutes long and that’s just too much for a film with a script that is just not strong enough for a film of that length. This movie would have worked much better had it been trimmed by about half an hour because the main plot is a fairly simple story when you think about it. The main character seeks revenge on the villain for the death of his brother; that’s pretty much it. But it seems like the writers ended up adding in more besides that, which is why the movie is this long. There are two other villains beside Cavendish; a railroad tycoon (Tom Wilkinson) and a corrupt Calvary captain (Barry Pepper). The inclusion of Wilkinson’s character actually does work in regard to the story, but Pepper’s character is really just… there to be a villain. The way the whole narrative is set up is also rather awkward too, because there are certain points where the kid who the elderly Tonto is telling the story to interrupts him, and the Tonto from back then even looks to the camera acknowledging this as well, which really makes no sense. I’m not saying it’s bad, but it could have been handled a bit better.

But the main thing that keeps this movie together is its two leads. Depp and Hammer work off each other very well and they have really good camaraderie, resulting in a good amount of humor. As Tonto, Depp is pretty much channeling his ‘Jack Sparrow’ persona again here, but it still works very well and he is responsible for the majority of the humor in this film because of how ‘eccentric’ he can be. As the Lone Ranger, Hammer is perfectly cast in the role, displaying the right level of charm and wit, especially when working alongside Depp. Finally, there’s a nice supporting cast to back them up, including William Fichtner (properly menacing as Butch Cavendish), James Badge Dale (who’s having quite a year so far, appearing in 3 blockbuster movies; Iron Man 3, World War Z, and this), Ruth Wilson as Dan’s wife Rebecca (who has a bit of romantic connection to John as well), and Helena Botham Carter as the owner of a brothel who also has a connection to Cavendish.

Right now, ‘The Lone Ranger’ stands at 23% on Rotten Tomatoes and to that I say this… this movie is not as bad as that rating may seem. For the record, I’m not saying the movie’s perfect. It does suffer mainly from a length problem because for a movie that is about two and a half hours long, the script just doesn’t have enough in it to justify that length. But the movie still manages to work mainly for one main reason; it’s fun. If you’re able to go into this movie and not take it too seriously, then I guarantee that you’ll have a good time. This can also serve as a nice introduction for a new audience to this character, namely because there hasn’t been anything related to the Lone Ranger for at least three decades. Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer do work together quite nicely, and I would look forward to seeing them do another film in this series; just make sure that, if they do another ‘Lone Ranger’ film (which may not happen if the movie bombs at the box office), don’t make it two and a half hours long.

(On a side note, this movie does have a bit of a ‘post-credits’ stinger, but believe me… there’s not much to it.)

Rating: 3.5/5