Rise of the Planet of the Apes

.

Title: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: January 18th, 2012

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Is it possible that the modern blockbuster is being reinvented right before our eyes? That was the question I had asked myself mid-way through watching Rise of the Planet of the Apes: the first installment of an apparent reboot of the iconic science fiction franchise. At this point, the film carried itself almost exclusively on substance. A commentary on human nature using the species that are one step below on the evolutionary scale. Then the budget poured in. A long sequence of the rise itself in the form of an action setpiece at the Golden Gate Bridge. Then the unwelcome cliche arrived. The female love interest whom we barely know anything about steals a kiss from the likable male hero and then creates a diversion that helps him gain a temporary (and minor) upper hand. In due credit though, at least nobody pretended this person was anything more than a plot device.

I was disappointed to realize that the summer action film hadn't evolved as much as I was lead on to believe. But the same cannot be said for the featured apes who end up growing their intelligence level far greater than the human bystanders ever anticipated. The first of this kind is appropriately named Ceasar (performed by motion capture hall-of-famer Andy Serkis). Like the man who elevated Rome to an empire, this ape is born to lead an advanced species of his own kind to rule a new civilization. And in this case, eventually the entire world. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the first official attempt to explain how and why this all happened. The answer is unsettling because of how the original intentions were worthwhile and conducted with so little recklessness. The power that humans take for granted with their position as the most intelligent species on the planet becomes fragile once the apes obtain a comparable level of power. And as the movie's plot wishes to teach, no species is willing to settle for second best.

Caesar is originally a house pet to scientist Will Rodman (James Franco). Motivated by his father's struggles with Alzheimer's disease, Will devotes his work to the construction of experimental drugs designed to grow new cells within brains. Caesar inherits an upgraded mind from his mother who was used as one of the earliest test subjects. He is different than other animals and learns enough to understand this fact by adulthood. The key idea is that the drugs never alter the animal patients' natural behavior. They remain as unpredictable as wild animals ever have been. But they grow to become more self aware of their strengths and gain a strong sense of injustice that's done to them by human "caretakers." The only crime these apes commit, at least initially, is simply behaving the way nature intended.

Living up to the lore of protective nature that both fiction and nonfiction attributed to apes, Caesar is imprisoned for defending Will's father from a mild threat that appeared potentially fatal in his eyes. Like what many of society's outcasts face, what should be a place for harmony and negative reinforcement is instead a mere storage facility overseen by beings not fit to run their own lives much less others. During the viewing, my mother commented how certain moments reminded her of The Green Mile. Even in early scenes the human characters behave less human than animals. When confronted over a decision to terminate remaining ape experimentation subjects, the company's head manager rationalizes the decision by explaining that although scientists are there to make history, he is there to make money. All subsequent appearances by this character showcase him staying one step behind in logic. Whoever wrote the script holds a lot of contempt towards business leaders.

The scientists working for Twentieth Century Fox bring the apes to life using computerized motion capture that's not quite state of the art. Realism is sacrificed in exchange for breathtaking tracking shots of the apes at play. Their gracefulness behind traveling through natural environments plus the superior brawn add credibility to the idea of apes one day overtaking humans as the dominant species. What gets hurt is the ability to suspend disbelief over their existence. The computer generated imagery stands out from the real world backdrop like black and white. To curb the distraction, imagine an alternative Earth dimension where apes look a little different than how we accept. It wouldn't even be too far-fetched to assume this story takes place on an entirely different planet altogether; especially considering that's what the author of the original Planet of the Apes novel had in mind.

But the social commentary belongs right here on Earth. The apes rise because they learn to understand human values and how to obtain them. The need to be independent. To have control over personal destiny. To hunt instead of being hunted. And the one that mankind has yet to fully acquire; the ability to defeat death. Popular culture's history insists that particular dream cannot be realized without challenging nature; the most dangerous practice of all. The people behind this film are not shy about showing their staunch belief in that philosophy. 

Rating: 7 

Horrible Bosses

.

Title: Horrible Bosses

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: September 7th, 2011

MPAA Rating: R

In his cynical book of advice for high school graduates, author Charles J. Sykes warned "If you think your teacher is tough, wait til' you get a boss."

Perhaps it's simply due to very good fortune but I cannot relate to that sentiment at all. Having so far been employed by four different companies, I have never worked under a supervisor or even a regional manager that came from Hell's gate like so many Generation X adults groomed me to expect. I think the real difference between a company leader and a teacher is that teaching jobs are more frequently a secondary career choice. It's rare but a treasurable thing to find a teacher who is motivated beyond the paycheck. Business leaders (the non-corrupt kind) take pride in creating/expanding jobs and/or ideas. The best leaders recognize the value in human labor and how the happiest workers are also usually the most productive ones.

We don't see any of those people in Horrible Bosses. It's a movie about exactly what the title promises. The sociopathic type of leaders who only care about the bottom line revenue. The type who take pleasure in exercising power purely for personal amusement. The type who enjoy breaking their employees' spirits. The type that everyone except me (*knocks on wood*) has experienced.

Three protagonists are stuck under the watchful eye of employers so nightmarish that it drives them into a breaking point territory that they never before considered; a plot to have them all murdered.

Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) has possibly the slimiest and most sadistic boss in town; Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey.) Dave has spent eight years teasing a promotion endorsement for Nick but enjoys humiliating him too much to carry through with it. He forces him to work sixteen-hour days even during family emergencies and at one point berates him for arriving two minutes late to work. Nick wants to quit and find other work but realizes he'll never receive a positive recommendation from Dave. 

Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) is engaged to be married but operates under a female boss (Jennifer Aniston) who wants him for herself. Days are filled with sexual harassment and blackmail. Dale is stuck between a rock and a hard place because his status as a registered sex offender makes finding alternative employment ultra difficult.

Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) likes his job and his boss....until he dies of a sudden heart attack. The office building is now operated by the proprietor's son Bobby (Colin Farrell); a cocaine addict and all-around rude person. Kurt's job more or less remains the same but he can't help but worry about the longevity.

The plot outline could be ripe for a serious drama. A vehicle for exploring middle class dark fantasies. But as the self-aware script points out, that had already been done before in Strangers on a Train and Throw Momma from the Train. The situations are driven for laughs sourced from the protagonists repeatedly failing to get any quality plan off the ground. Short-sighted stupidity, cruel fate and sometimes even the bosses themselves roadblock any chance for a body count. Even the assassin for hire (Jamie Foxx) ends up falling short of his reputation.

With the exception of Jennifer Aniston, all the aforementioned actors are hired to perform the routines they're best known for. That's actually a high compliment for Aniston because she has finally found something worthwhile to do outside of the stale rom-com genre. I feel some guilt saying that because truthfully the role is less than flattering and could be viewed as a step backward for feminism. Hopefully it serves as the start of a trend of selecting more interesting projects instead of a new typecast.

Horrible Bosses' humor is the zany over-the-top kind that requires the viewer to be at least mildly crazy to appreciate. But if you're already willing to root for people that advocate murder, that shouldn't be a problem, especially if the villains seem capable of doing far worse. Kevin Spacey practically makes a living off playing unpredictable characters that makes you wonder when exactly their lives jumped the shark. This isn't to imply laziness but Dave Harken is a role that Spacey can probably do while sleepwalking. He's had enough practice. Yet his master timing is still able to provide more than a few memorable "Did he really just do that?" moments. Much of the contrasting lighter humor comes from television favorite Charlie Day, especially when the script calls for his character to erupt in full-blown panic mode; a skill that Day has mastered to perfection.

The next work shift following my viewing of the film, I brought it up in a conversation with my own boss who is probably even more down-to-Earth than I am. Although I had already thought highly of him, I made sure to communicate how much the film helped me appreciate his leadership and validate my belief that the world would probably be a better place if everyone followed his example. It was that conversation that helped me realize why my boss had such an easy-going personality. He had worked under some of those fabled Generation X sociopaths who gave business leaders that intimidating aura. Thus he understood why superiority complexes were pointless. I was afraid to ask how many of them were still alive.

Rating: 7

Paul

.

Title: Paul

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: September 3rd, 2011

MPAA Rating: R

It was around 6pm last Saturday. After a three hour session of clicking, typing and leaning my head into my hand in frustration, it was time for a snack break to recharge the brain batteries. It was a complex assignment yet the adrenaline was still running high. Homework is rarely ever this exciting but the college's film studies curriculum has brought many exceptions. As my mouth consumed the remaining pieces of dried mango, it occasionally stopped long enough to ramble about all the discoveries I had made within the past three hours. The assignment in question was a topic of my choosing: Film music composer James Horner's tendency to directly copy his own past material for use in future projects. My sister was the sole spectator; listening to me recall familiar tunes from movies of our youth. She wasn't even a quarter of the way amused as I was. Upon noticing this, I stopped, embarrassed.


"I'm such a geek," I confessed.


Then she replied with something I didn't expect. The exact words escape me but it was something along the lines of "That's okay. Being a fan of something is what makes you interesting."


And she was right. When you think about all the past and present friends that you've accumulated over the years, there's a good chance many of those friendships were spawned and are grouped by a shared interest. Celebrating that interest with someone that appreciates it as much as yourself is liberating. If the guest list is large enough, it becomes an event.


Today's movie is about two friends who live and are probably destined to die through their mutual love of science fiction. British comic-book fans Graeme Willy (Simon Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Nick Frost) embark on a road trip adventure that begins as a celebration of extraterrestrial stories at San Diego's Comic-Con and finishes in their very own story at a Nevada desert. While touring locations relevant to alien urban legends, a road accident leads to a close encounter with a real alien being named Paul (voice of Seth Rogen).


On the run from government agents that formerly had him in custody, Paul asks his two new friends to help him reach a rendezvous destination so he can return to his home planet. It's like the final sequence in E.T. or the ALF series finale on a comedy acid trip. But don't expect very much sentimentality or even a lot of new ideas here. Expect references of past science fiction masterworks and the promotion of bad behavior. It won't make anyone proud but should please those who get a kick out of such genius lunacy.


It's clearly evident through here and their prior work that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (who also penned the script) have a strong affection for the media that inspired their own. Like the 2008 cult flick Fanboys, Paul is both a celebration and a lampooning of culture populated by obsessive individuals. Unlike Fanboys, Paul doesn't settle for just one culture. Extremism from different angles are represented through characters. Besides the sci-fi geeks, there are stereotypical government agents dressed in suits and sunglasses that will make any sacrifices necessary to keep their world control into fruition.


Paul himself doesn't even behave like someone from another planet but rather as an immature former fraternity resident who lives to recapture the glory of the prime days; via overdoses of marijuana. Even in a voice-only assignment, Seth Rogen still manages to demonstrate again why he's so natural in those roles. (That's a compliment, just to be clear.)


The personification of extremism that seemed to draw the strongest critical response was the staunch creationist character named Ruth, played by the always sporty Kristen Wiig. When Ruth sees Paul for the first time, she loses her bearings and screams for her God to terminate the alien being, going as far as spontaneously dropping to her knees in prayer while singing Amazing Grace. The scene and the character are played over the top and purely for laughs but not without drawing the criticism from believers who condemned the film for having an unfair depiction of Christians. (The IMDB message board threads is full of heated discussions.) Many played the straw man card; a mostly valid claim, but one that doesn't hold up when stacked against the lineup of other far out archetypes. And if someone already agrees to view a film about an alien life form; something that's undocumented on any scientific chart and few religious ones, is it really unfair to ask the same person to suspend their remaining pre-conceived notions on how life came to be? Even most atheists don't believe in life outside our home planet so the controversy doesn't really have ground to stand on anyway.


Shortly before the climax, the movie takes a break from the one-liners and stoner humor to tie up a loose end concerning Paul's past. He got his name from a young girl who witnessed his fateful crash landing. Now an elderly woman, she exhibits depression over the long years of ridicule she had to face from people who didn't believe her story, until Paul shows up again in her life to liberate the despair away. Of all the film's references to pop culture's affect on its aficionados, this one is probably the most important because of how it speaks to the young adult in all of us. Life has a turning point that asks us to let go of the preferred reality that the mind creates and accept the real one. To grow up, so to speak. Those who were exposed to stories about chosen heroes or worlds of imagination during youth would dream of encountering a similar fantasy in their own life before accepting it as nothing more than just that; fantasy. That's why films such as E.T. have such a strong appeal to the youth because of how it stimulates those dreams. Adults now have Paul for times when they wish to revisit the nostalgia and this time with a chance to hear all the F-words that the parents warned against. The best of both worlds indeed.

Rating: 7

Hugo

.

Title: Hugo

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: November 16th, 2011

MPAA Rating: PG

Early Review

Martin Scorsese is my new hero. In a recent interview conducted by The Guardian, he replied to a question on why his newest film, Hugo, was shot in 3D.

"I've always liked 3D. I mean, we're sitting here in 3D. We are in 3D. We see in 3D. So why not?"

The latest incarnation of the three-dimensional picture era has been met with divisive reactions and controversy. Supporters are drawn in by the illusion of being closer to the onscreen images. And in some cases, they're a part of it. Critics find the format too distracting and have dismissed it as nothing more than a passing fad that scams the consumer into paying extra money. I belong in the former group although my opponents often have valid points about the format's flaws. But one of the few things that the arguers tend to agree upon is that the final result holds better quality when the setup or conversion process is in the hands of someone who possesses a genuine interest for 3D possibilities. So far, the titles for biggest triumphs probably belong to James Cameron's Avatar and Robert Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol. But while those two individuals are better credited for technical breakthroughs than anything else, the entrance of Martin Scorsese into the foray should turn some heads because of his wider universal respect. It's amazing how a man like Scorsese who has seen and done it all in his respective profession can find a way to reinvent himself through his very first 3D effort and still live up to his already storied reputation. If you've been anticipating the next great 3D experience that's worth paying money for, the wait is over.

Adapted from Brian Selznick's children's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, the title character (played by Asa Butterfield) is a young orphan who lives inside the walls and other obscure interior of a train station in 1930s Paris. Hugo has the gift of fixing machines; a trait inherited from his father (Jude Law) who had died under mysterious circumstances. The last project his father had been working on was a strange-looking automaton armed with a calligraphy pen. By pilfering parts from a nearby merchant, Hugo gets closer and closer at repairing it back to working condition. It's the only remaining hope in understanding his past and destiny. There's a sentimental side to that mission too. Hugo cannot bare to see broken machines and at one moment he compares them to depressed human beings. Machines are broken once they cannot perform their intended purpose. People feel broken inside when they lose sight of their own purpose.

Hugo's source for mechanical parts is a toy salesman named Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley). After catching the boy red-handed, George takes possession of a notebook that details the construction plan for the automaton and burns it to dust. Or so we are led to believe. Georges' daughter Isabelle (Chloe Moretz) takes a special interest in Hugo and secretly informs him that the notebook had not really been destroyed. Her father has ulterior motives behind keeping the item in captivity beyond petty revenge. Upon learning this, Hugo confronts the merchant again. He accepts a bargain where the deal is to perform labor work for Georges until enough wages have been earned to pay for the stolen items. In the meantime, Hugo and Isabelle's friendship blossoms thanks to their mutual interest in motion pictures. The puzzle pieces that connect all the characters with the automaton begin to fall into place but it could all be for nothing if the clumsy station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) succeeds in turning Hugo over to the city orphanage.

Until now, only James Cameron's Avatar has displayed live-action 3D visuals as crisp as what's offered here. It's not perfect; Some action sequences have the dreaded blur that induce migraines to the easily susceptible. And there's an awkward extreme close-up shot of the station inspector. But there's success where it counts most. The majestic aura of a clock tower's inner workings, the gorgeous view of the evening Paris skyline and the claustrophobic effect that children feel when surrounded by adults. The stationary wide views of Paris are my personal favorites. It's like looking at a work of art but with mobile people. Scorsese is eager to show off his new skills very early in the picture. There's a long breathtaking shot that moves from the exterior to the interior of the train station (the film's primary setting) before finishing at Hugo's favorite secret vantage point for observing the station's occupants. 3D is used as a tool, not as the main attraction. Hugo's climatic and daring escape by dangling from the hands of a clock (imitating Harold Lloyd's famous stunt in Safety Last) is exciting enough because of what's at stake in the plot. But how about the addition of a backdrop that's so incredible to look at that it might initiate some real vertigo? 

A more substance-oriented viewer might say "That's nice and all. But how does the narrative match up to the movie's look?" The answer is pretty darn well. This is not an experimental film. So expect to see the same level of care and attention that's given to the most prestigious projects that are submitted for Academy consideration. I doubt this movie will contend for many awards outside of outstanding visual effects. But that's more to do with its predictable nature than for any straight-up faults.

The film's marketing isn't completely honest. Isabelle quips out of context "It's Neverland and Oz and Treasure Island all wrapped up into one." Eh, not quite. It's more like The Gold Bug, Oliver Twist and the pages of a film history book. That last ingredient is a terrific surprise and a delight to watch. A major character is revealed to have been one of cinema's earliest and most prolific directors before the dynamics of the business saw too many changes. This part had been inspired by a real life French director whose story ends a little less happily than how it's depicted in this picture. Some of this person's most famous films are recreated (in vintage 2D) with flattering montages. Other notable early films such as The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station are paid homage to. The urban legend about the audiences in 1895 screaming and ducking for cover as the train moves toward the screen is filmed in appropriately humorous fashion. If that's all it took to terrify them, imagine their reaction to modern-day 3D.

Kids will enjoy Hugo because of the young characters' antics of finding and escaping trouble. Teens will be too awestruck by the technical achievements to realize that they're the wrong target audience (unless they're college freshmen studying film). But it's adults that will be rewarded with the most enjoyment from the film's breezy two-hour running time because the characters' struggle to find life's perfect philosophy will have the strongest connection to them. In one of the most dramatic scenes, a somber Georges Melies confides to his family how he ended up believing that happy endings only happen in the movies. The one I'm currently writing about reminds us why that statement is always moot because nobody's story is ever finished as long as the person is still breathing.

Rating: 8

The Hangover: Part II

.

Title: The Hangover: Part II

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: May 26th, 2011

MPAA Rating: R

In Jackie Chan's autobiography, a single sentence described the basic business model of China's film industry during the time he was working to break into it. It read (paraphrased) "If something works, you do it again." When Bruce Lee became the top box office draw at Hong Kong cinemas, every studio wanted to cash in by creating their own variations of the winning formula. Hero is trained in martial arts. Hero's family dies. Hero uses martial arts to beat the bad guys and avenge the family's death. Before anyone knew it, there were Fists of Fury clones everywhere on the market. Though we have yet to see our North American studios resort to that level of outrageous, they sure seem to be heading in that direction.

I am not against sequels in general. It's usually fun to see familiar characters encountering a different situation or the same situation with a different twist. And it can still count as creative work. I am however against the practice of greenlighting sequels without having a fresh idea to take with it. This happens because the studio is more concerned about maximizing revenue while the original idea is still fresh on the consumer's mind. Hollywood's number one priority is not producing fine art (though that often happens anyway) but to earn money. Sad but true. A sequel to The Hangover, the lightning in the bottle of 2009, should have surprised nobody. The original was not meant to have a continuing story but it raked in too much box office revenue to be left alone. Like all those Fists of Fury wannabes, The Hangover Part II has too much insecurity to be its own thing. By focusing too heavily on recreating the magic from the past, it dooms itself from becoming anything more than an exercise in self-plagirism.

Set a few years after the first story, the Wolfpack reunites for another bachelor party this time in celebration of Stu's (Ed Helms) wedding. With the past chaotic escapades still fresh on his mind, Stu takes no chances and limits the events to a casual brunch before traveling to Thailand to meet the in-laws. Following an awkward dinner with the bride's family, the gang coaxes Stu and his future brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee) into joining them for a campfire chat. They spend the night roasting marshmellows and enjoying what is probably one of the last few opportunities for all of them to be together.

The story fast forwards to the following morning. Stu, Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) wake up in a shanty Bangkok hotel room with another massive hangover and no memory of how they ended up there. Doug (Justin Bartha) is absent again but resting safely at the wedding location. Teddy however is nowhere in sight. Feeling responsible for the mess and curious to know how he received his new face tattoo, Stu refuses to return for the wedding until Teddy is found and brought back. The trio search the seedy streets of Bangkok, finding some new and familiar friends while running from new enemies along the way. And then.....there is nothing left to talk about. If you've seen The Hangover Part One, the rest can be easily predicted.

The lack of creativity here is astounding, even for Hollywood standards. I already covered just about every new idea, so what does that say? The location changed and a few characters are swapped but the sequence of events remain untouched as if someone was worried about ruining the recipe. But here's why more change was needed. A big part of the original movie's fun was in not being able to expect where the clues will lead to. Or how it all started. Or how close or far they were to finding their friend. I won't give away spoilers but there's really no point anyway. The Hangover Part II spoils itself by its unwillingness to bend even slightly for the sake of surprise. Not even Rain Man feared change this much and he was a......you know what.

Here's what else we know. A prostitute is involved somehow. Alan will have a new small sized sidekick to play around with. A kidnapping and ransom plot will be thrown in. Teddy will not be found until Phil makes that confessing phone call and Stu reaches that epiphany. Mister Chow and Mike Tyson will show up because it's too small of a world for new gangsters and celebrity cameos. Stu will write another song. Do you still want to see this movie? If not, don't blame me. Those are not spoilers. They have all been revealed through trailers, promotional interviews and the opening scene. In other words, they want you to learn those things so you'll feel comfortable knowing that it's a risk-free movie. By the time I realized there were no more surprises, I was begging for someone to take chance with anything. Make Stu an alien. I don't care. Just try something. And there is absolutely no reason for Doug to once again disappear for half of the movie. Why not seize the opportunity to develop his character a little more? It would have been interesting to see how his personality reacts to being lost or watch him lose his wit's end over Alan's antics.

If there's one thing that's immune to staleness, it has to be the lead actors. The chemistry between them is still very strong. And though the cards dealt to them are largely poor, each one contributes in keeping this watchable. Zach Galifinakis' strongest talent still seems to be acting like a child trapped in an adult's body. The "stay-at-home son" scene with his mother is worthy of a few laughs. Ed Helms is superb as the square guy gradually losing his sanity. I think the only way a third film could be convincing is if he starts hanging out with a new circle of friends only to find out they are just as crazy as his old circle. After this incident, I would have retired from the Wolfpack. Bradley Cooper doesn't have any memorable moments but his screen charisma is necessary for keeping things moving.

As my role models always say, it's better to try and fail than to not try at all. The Hangover Part II is one of the laziest efforts in storytelling beyond what could even be imagined. Thus it deserves no commendation. Unless I've got it all wrong and the producers were simply giving what they thought the fans wanted to see. In that case, it's our fault for not demanding more.

Rating: 3     

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

.

Title: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: May 19th, 2011

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Johnny Depp is back (as if there was any doubt) as Captain Jack Sparrow in the fourth installment of the hugely successful Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. This adventure sails familiar waters while bringing along some new crewmates including new a director; Rob Marshall. Borrowing from Tim Powers' novel titled "On Stranger Tides", returning screenwriters Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio turned in a script that is half original and half adaptation; one of several new directions for the series. In comparison to where it has sailed before, On Stranger Tides amends some of the past problems while allowing others to linger. Most importantly though, it doesn't forget why it exists: to deliver the fun and unpredictable thrills one expects to see in a summer blockbuster.

Picking up a short time after At Worlds' End left off, shipless and crewless Jack Sparrow travels to London in search of the pirate who had been impersonating him around town. The impostor turns out to be a former love interest named Angelica (Penelope Cruz). The ruse was a way to recruit unsuspecting townspeople to join the crew of the infamous Blackbeard (Ian McShane) whom Angelica claims is her father. The mission is to locate the fabled Fountain of Youth. Jack is tricked into serving onboard and now has to contend with his problematic feelings for Angelica while staying below the radar of Blackbeard's sword.

But there are other parties hoping to find the fountain first. Jack's first mate Joshamee Gibbs (Kevin McNally) barters to assist former rival turned navy privateer Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) with his own expedition while also avoiding the hangman's noose. Motivated by the belief that the fountain is an abomination against religion, the Spanish army also join the race. Whoever gets there first will impact a destiny over life and death. Some will die before reaching the destination.

On Stranger Tides feels more like a spinoff than a sequel and that's a good thing. In previous offerings, the writers often seemed too captive in the mindset that everything has to be bigger and better than it was before. What ended up happening was the plot bit off more than could be chewed which resulted in an unsatisfying meal. Except for the fun factor, nearly everything is scaled back from the bar that had been set prior. By allowing more room for the film to breathe, the Pirates universe remains in a comfortably ambiguous state while the characters have more freedom to grow. Jack Sparrow is still the clumsy nomad that we all know and love. But this time, he demonstrates capability to be the voice of reason when the time calls for it. Hector Barbossa's tweener role is given a new dimension from the unseen history of losing his flagship Black Pearl and his leg during a fateful voyage.

Ian McShane's depiction of Blackbeard is a very loose depiction of the real life counterpart. Lacking the intimidating presence of Davy Jones and the charisma of Barbossa, the character is at his most interesting when utilizing the knowledge of magic and voodoo. His flagship the Queen Anne's Revenge is powered by a magical sword that controls both the steering and direction. The voodoo is an invaluable tool in keeping the slaves serving under him bonded by fear. It's nice to see a legend become reimagined for the Disney universe, but the real memorable villains are the dangerous mermaids that inhabit the waters around the fountain's location. In a justifiably lengthy scene, the mermaids live up to their storied reputation by seducing a scapegoat group of live pirate bait only to attack with ferociousness when the prey is at their most vulnerable. It's one of the darkest and most exciting moments in the studio's long history.

The stale romantic subplot of Will and Elizabeth Turner has been wisely discarded and replaced with.....an almost equally stale romantic subplot. One of the mermaids is captured as part of the ritual for utilizing the fountain's powers. While I'm on the subject, let me say that I like how the rituals in this series grow in ridiculousness each time. It's a good running joke. The only human that shows pity to the mythical captive is a missionary who is mesmerized by her beauty amongst the unique constitution. She returns the fondness because he seems to have a different aura than anyone else. It's a refreshing angle to see at first but fails to grow beyond its novelty concept. This might be the only Pirates film that would have benefited from a longer running time if that came to be.

The good news is that the movie makes the most of its reduced length. The story starts off at a quick pace and stays that way to the end. In terms of action sequences, On Stranger Tides is the most satisfying set offered so far. From the early carriage chase through London to the swordfight showdown at the fountain; the movie never stops being fun from a spectator's viewpoint. For those with a story-first mindset, the experience depends on the strength of fascination with mythological themes and how far they're willing to accept the "Point A to Point B" style of narrative. I'd say that should be expected from the onset because a pirate's life was rarely any more than that.

On Stranger Tides was my first summer thrill ride of the season and I'm happy to state that it's one that I really enjoyed. Fans should not fear climbing aboard.

Rating: 8

The Mechanic

Title: The Mechanic

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: January 30th, 2011

MPAA Rating: R

Seeing Jason Statham's name on a movie poster is all it takes for my friends to visit the multiplex. I tagged along because I always love hanging out with them and because Statham's movies are usually a one-note instrument and thereby easy to review.

Statham's character calls himself a mechanic but is really an assassin named Arthur Bishop. You've heard the comedic threat of murdering someone and making it look like an accident. That's actually what Bishop does for a living. In the opening scene, he manages to drown a mobster in his swimming pool while maintaining the illusion of casual exercise long enough to escape the retaliation. No rhyme. No reason. No set-up. He enters, does the job and goes home. This pattern repeats roughly a half dozen times throughout the movie in varying degrees of challenge. Bishop is an enigma. We barely get to know who he is or who he works for.

A pivotal occurrence comes when Bishop is assigned to terminate former mentor Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland), which leads to what is probably his first ever honorable kill. A new assignment immediately arises, one that Bishop creates for himself. Train Harry's son Steve (Ben Foster) as a sidekick. Steve has a case of Bruce Wayne syndrome. His father's death left a void in his life. His burning need for vengeance inspires him to quell dangerous murderers by killing them first, completely unaware that his teacher was the one responsible for the original life-altering event.

The Mechanic is a reworking of a 1972 film by the same name which had Charles Bronson in the title role. Although I haven't seen that one yet, it's safe to say that Statham made the role his own. All the trademarks are present. He speaks in a calm voice, never at a loss for words. The bad guys always struggle to keep up with his cleverness. He's tough as nails with a side dish of sadism. And there's a standout moment intended to surprise the audience and define his character as the ultimate bad mother-you-know-what. It's very much a typical Jason Statham vehicle for every glossary.

Steve McKenna never really has a chance to come into his own. Quick into his apprenticeship, he becomes an Arthur Bishop clone minus the charm. The assassins' targets do not fare much better. James Bond movies usually offer enough backstory for the bad guys that serve to help strengthen the impact of their eventual demise. This movie doesn't even give a quarter of that effort to its own villains. One such promising character is a televangelist on the verge of becoming a pop culture icon. He has an enormous cult following that believe him to be the sole direct communicator to God. Bishop's employer suspects an abuse of power. Imagine the possibilities here. If he gets involved in...say politics...who knows what might become....never mind, he's dead now. Just like all the other wasted ideas.

It's obvious that this movie was only meant to be a mindless action fest without any character driven drama getting in the way. Fine by me, but why not make it a television series instead and get two for the price of one? The set-up is already tailor-made. Each new episode would feature a new super-villain to eliminate. Sure, the violence would have to be toned down and you wouldn't need Statham, but at least he'll be free to pursue a more challenging project and please his fanbase elsewhere.

My friends and I paid for what we expected to see and we got it. My reception was milder than the rest of the group because I wanted more than what was expected, which wasn't a lot to begin with.

Rating: 4

The Green Hornet

Title: The Green Hornet

Year of Release: 2011

Date Viewed: January 8th, 2011

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Seth Rogan as a superhero? Good one, but April is still three months away. Nice try. Oh, you're serious. Which superhero is he? The Green Hornet? You mean that old TV show with Bruce Lee? Okay, I'll bite. Who's in the Bruce Lee role? Jay Chou? Who the heck is that? Who is directing this thing? Michel Gondry? The guy who did Eternal Sunshine? What is he doing making an action movie? This is an action movie, right? Who wrote the script? Seth Rogen again? Look, Pineapple Express was one thing, but this? I don't know. Who else in the movie? Cameron Diaz? What is she there for? Eye candy? Okay, that part sounds believable.

I had some justifiable reservations about watching The Green Hornet. Although the results were not as messy as anticipated, I still stand my ground that the project would have likely been better off in more seasoned hands.

Seth Rogan plays Britt Reid, a spoiled slacker who inherits his father's news media company after he dies under suspicious circumstances. Britt's lack of ambition doesn't allow him to effectively lead the organization, so it appears that stepping down is the only option. It's not until Britt meets Kato (Jay Chou), one of his father's loyal servants, that the real possibilities become clear. The pair have nothing in common except that they both appreciate fancy cars and macho weaponry. Kato's knack for creating innovative technology inspires Britt to conjure up an idea. Use the gadgets to do something meaningful for once in their lives; like fight crime. With this, a new media sensation is born. The legend of The Green Hornet; heroes that act as villains. Justice is served and more newspaper subscriptions are sold. A win-win situation for everybody.

Seth Rogen is at least humble enough to recognize that he's not superhero material, neither with image nor skills. So his character had to act as an incompetent klutz that unwittingly sabotages every operation, only to later take all the credit for any success. This kind of character doesn't really work in a movie full of incompetents, which is what we get here. Rogen's character should be lost in a misunderstood world. Instead, everyone (with the exception of Kato) acts like they attended the same school of acting. Most characters are not very likable either. I'm still trying to figure out what drove Britt to fire his entire staff of household servants. For a guy that doesn't care much about anything, he sure acted quick on that button.

Cameron Diaz doesn't do any favors for her typecast resume. Britt acts like her character is vital to keeping his operation under wraps, yet we don't actually see her do anything except participate in slapstick, tease some romance and smile at the camera.

Christoph Waltz, fresh off his recent Oscar win for Inglourious Basterds, is mostly wasted in the head villain role. His character is more concerned over how intimidating he looks instead of actually being intimidating. If you can't get someone like Waltz to keep the crowd on their toes, you're either making a parody or you're not doing your job right. The supporting villains don't add much credibility either. The opening scene features Waltz and an uncredited James Franco trading foul-mouthed insults with comical words. It wasn't funny or amusing, but it was an early indicator that nothing has changed from the usual Rogen and company fare.

That's not entirely true though. The scenes that I thought would face the most trouble, the action scenes, actually deliver. The cliches like random explosions and shaky cameras are not as overbearing as most actions scenes in this modern era. There are car chases and fight scenes galore (including another MTV award nomination), but none borrow too heavily from each other. And to be fair, Rogen's gift of comedic timing is still present. His annoyance factor will vary. Most of the good things are kept interesting enough to make The Green Hornet a worthwhile rental, assuming that your surround sound is up for the job. You'll want to use it. Trust me.

Rating: 5