Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean/Dead Men Tell No Tales

Theme parks look like money makers. The crowds, the merchandise, the people willing to pay big bucks to wait in line more than actually doing anything like seeing attractions. They really can cash it in. Since you pay one, always raising, price, you can't wheel and deal and budget. One lump sum into the pockets of various shareholders. Movie makers? On the other hand? Simple. You can rotate your property to digital home services for those who aren't willing to shell out the movie tickets, and maybe make some kind of profit. The theater? That doesn't have to be rebuilt, you just install another movie. And you can play it a few times a day to earn your cash.

Disney, always looking for another way to sell their wares (these people can get the lint out of your pockets, so don't say you weren't warned-and don't worry, I drank the Kool-Aid too, every single fucking time), elected to rebrand their famed attractions at the turn of the century. Taking a page from their own rulebook from back in the 80's, where they found actors and actresses who weren't bringing in the contracts, casting them in quick movies under a new banner, Touchstone pictures, and sending them back out in the wild; elected to take their theme park intellectual properties and make motion pictures. Most were, well, bland. The Haunted Mansion, a popular attraction at every park, has amazing special effects that happen 'live' (for lack of a better term) before your very eyes; Hollywood movies have already done that, so they would have to rely on a story to keep such a film afloat.

It sank. Even with Eddie Murphy, it wasn't very funny. Was it for kids? Was it for adults? Who knows. Disney didn't. But they made it.

They also cobbled together a Country Bears tale which was amusing, but, again, it came off as a Chuck E. Cheese presentation without much creativity. Or country music.

The third creation? Based on one of the last creation from Mr. Disney himself? Pirates of the Caribbean. Here's something. They tried something totally new. They rode the ride out there in Anaheim a few gazillion times and it shows. They came out with a creative tale of cursed treasure, pirates that can't die but want to live again, a love story, cannon-fire, and huge set pieces that came to explosive entertainment on the screen that summer of 2003. The music soared. And a supporting character, played with delicious aplomb by Johnny Depp, stole the show while still chewing the scenery. As Captain Jack Sparrow, technically a minor character who pushes the protagonists into play, he threw his skill into the performance and it was truly incredible. You couldn't wait to see his humorous asides and when he was off screen, you wanted him to come back.

And Johnny did what all good looking and exceptional actors do. He tried to make himself as unloveable as possible. He was drunk, his dreads were visibly aromatic. Yet, his swagger, guy-liner, and demeanor was so saucily three-dimensional, the theater's houses were packed.

Obviously, so much fun could not be contained. The sequels followed.

They were abhorrent messes in plotting, moving Depp's character to the front, a convulsion of too many high paid performers trying to angle their way into a storyline, and were a mess.

But Depp brought us back. We lined up, bought tickets and the movies made Disney more money.

To the point where that fixed asset over at Disney World and Disneyland practically cried to have him shoehorned into the ride because the guests were wondering why he wasn't there. He never was. The movie was based off of the ride, not the other way around.

And Depp, it has been known, loves the character. He'll show up at schools and childrens' hospitals across the world. This, folks, is the glory of fame. To do for others in a way none of us can ever imagine. I have some friends who volunteer cosplay at many of these places and they say it's beauty personified. Depp is no slouch. He loves the character enough to do it again and again for the kiddoes.

So it came as no surprise he'd show up again in a fourth film a few years ago.

But understand, he's a minor character. He's so popular, however, they moved him to the front, as protagonist. It didn't gel, when you watch, regardless of the presence of Depp, Penelope Cruz, and Ian McShane as Blackbeard (with that wonderful purr of a villain's voice).

And tickets were sold.

Heck, even I went.

I am, apparently part of the problem. Unlike Spielberg, content to leave his wonderful ET without a sequel to flog the beast to death for a steady paycheck, Disney brushed off ole Jack Sparrow again for a fifth installment.

And, yes, I found myself going...again. Oy. What was I thinking?

There's a reason, beyond Disney's original Treasure Island all those moons ago, that the pirate as a character hasn't taken off as a genre. Here? In Florida? Sure, there's a crapton of Pirate Fair this and Pirate Week that. But, really, the stereotype of the eyepatched, peglegged vile vagabond is truly not been brought up again and again like superheroes or cowboys.

Disney, with this one title, has made an entire genre.

And then keeps making movies. I was thinking I like Sparrow, I like the way Depp plays Sparrow-but, eventually, soda pop does lose it's savory fizz.

It is the story. The last movie was the least complicated of the bunch. Find the Fountain of Youth (it's supposedly here in Florida, on a sidenote. There's a lot of old people down here continuously looking for it and are really crabby about it). Here? Will Turner's son is looking to free his father from the Curse of the Flying Dutchmen, a ghost ship he was imprisoned in during film three. A young lady, going to be executed for practicing science, is some how obsessed with stars and shipping that she gets pulled into Jack's strangely low orbit. A new sea worth villain played with amazing special effects (again) by Javier Bardem as a Spaniard who cannot die until he destroys all the pirates he can find. And, because Jack, like some kind of magical tanned sea sprite, has links to every-single-character. The story folds in on itself here, there, again, here, over there and, after a while, the audience becomes exhausted in trying to figure out motive or purpose. This causes the images to become just that, images. The meaning is lost, and we begin to not even care about anyone.

Not even hottie Johnny Depp, doing his best to not be hot in any kind of pirate way.

(There is Brenton Thwaites in the Henry Turner role, giving Depp a run of his money in the film good looks department-but here's the thing, he's doing the Anakin bit. Too much whining and soft voiced arguing. At least Depp has presence and experience)

The film is seriously flawed, and, even though the cast is trying as hard as they can, there's just no true inner pacing that keeps it roaring forward. Swashbuckling, it seems, has a shelf-life. Maybe, just maybe, Sparrow should keep to being awesome in his own way-making people feel awesome.

As for Depp, he is a massively underrated actor. His good looks do get in the way, and his own tastes in titles he picks are not always the most popular. That's awesome. I just can't help feeling he is just a few steps away from an Oscar. I don't know why it hasn't happened yet. He was incredible, even without the ability to sing, in Sweeney Todd. Hilarious in both Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Black Mass. I liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when the world didn't, and he was excellent. Did I say underrated? Maybe that's not the correct word. He's more of an artist than the popular masses can accept. Only Sparrow seems to be the one they accept him as. That's unfortunate.

Because it means there might be more of these complicated Pirate movies.

Folks, just go on the ride. It's much more linear.

Another different kind of Review: Stranger in a Strange Land

First the Handmaid's Tale. A novel approach to, well, a novel-it went ahead and made me think of critiquing something in a different manner.

Such a brave new world, with such people in it.

Now? This.

As you know, I'm kinda into my Disney crap. This blog is not a location for such elaboration, but more of an intro as to where I'm going with this. I was afforded an opportunity this weekend, on Mother's Day, to be exact, to see Disney World's latest "land" over at their Animal Kingdom. This land? This specific locale is based on the famed Avatar and it's setting, the off-planet moon of Pandora. This new land located in the area that used to be housing Camp Minnie-Mickey, a completely failed attempt to fill space that was going to be holding the "legendary beasts" section of the park. They already had real animals. They had extinct animals over in Dinoland. This was going to be the corner of the park that housed dragons and mythical beasts, you know, animals that Never Were. But, Disney, seeing they were already making money, used the excuse that Harry Potter was claimed over at Universal and would be giving similar experiences, just threw some old Lion King parade floats into a warehouse, hired acrobats and dancers (much easier to replace when they break down) and called it a land.

Quick! Duck! One of the sights that was replaced at Pandora.

And there, it languished. The land was fun to see a show in air-conditioning and sell a shitload of character photos, something they must be making a mint over, because they keep offering it.

This show has been moved to the Africa section of the park-and is still going strong. 

But now they decided to do something.

Okay, before I continue, lemme say, there's going to be spoilers, keep that in mind. I'm not going to hold back, here, so, read at your own bloody peril, okay?

But, see, that Harry Potter land, or, now, lands over at Universal? They took business.

It seems people want to see dragons, especially, in droves. And it hurt Disney. It hurt Disney so much that their much ballyhoo'd New Fantasyland didn't even cause a blip on the radar. Disney has ruled this area for so long, they were kicked and shocked that people would cancel two or three days at their Magic Kingdoms to head up the road to see Harry.

Shh, do you think the tourists would notice if we clone a ride from Cali? Nah, what do they know, they're tourists!

Couple that with a looming 50th anniversary that raked in the dough over in California (I would know, I was there), they had to make a decision. They need some major work.  Hollywood Studios is getting Star Wars Land and Toy Story Land. EPCOT is looking at, at least, two rumored new countries.

And Animal Kingdom had this space, that's for sure. It's a great little park. I mean that. I say, 'little' as a nicety. It is physically the largest of the theme parks, with huge spaces for the animals to truly roam. But the park access is actually a bit of a slice of it. Massively forested, it holds a change from the rest of the parks, a feel that is truly unique. It doesn't have the dreams that Magic Kingdom does or the amount of intellectual properties therein; it doesn't have the allure of Hollywood majesty and dreaming that is housed over in Hollywood Studios. EPCOT truly holds it's own and is very similar to Animal Kingdom. In fact, my husOtter adores the place.

Animal Kingdom was built on a spirit of discovery, but, unlike the technology vision of EPCOT, here, there are trails that lead to small paddocks holding this animal or that. Storylines, the bread-and-butter of many Disney attractions, are unique. There is a gorilla enclosure made to look like an animal survey team; a private tiger reserve for a mildly Indian kingship is another location.

But there's no Tomorrowland here, folks.

No look to the future of animals and conservation. No intrusion of a possible Utopian future, like you can see over at Magic Kingdom or EPCOT.

That was their angle. Forget the dragons, how about a planet where conservation was also what they were looking into.

Enter:  Avatar.

I'm not going to lie to y'all. I thought the movie sucked so bad, I could replace my Hoover on the living room carpet. It was devoid of life or originality. The themes were so simple and bold colored, a neon sign would pale in comparison. Characters were written from the back of a Pop Tart box. You can predict every moment in the film. Avatar was the creation of James Cameron, a filmmaker this film critic has mixed emotions about. The dude cranks out money makers for some reason. But, there are some truly great moments, early in his career. Terminator is it's own world and a terrific cross genre horror sci-fi. Aliens bests the movie it is a sequel to. True Lies is wonderfully creative, playing to the strengths of all the performers. But, like Micheal Bay, Cameron's ego takes over and the set pieces take over and, eventually, distract from the original tale. Titanic cuts zero new ground-but everyone loved it and it became the highest grossing film of all time. And, see, this is why I have mixed emotions about him. He, truly, brings the grand scale of the tragedy to detailed life.

And he made Avatar. A movie that earned even more money than Titanic.  He made to be on the big screen, with beautiful 3-D. It's gorgeous. But the story is so bland, I was torn between liking it and wondering why I spent extra money on seeing it in Imax.  The story is about a race of aliens, called the Na'vi, that are at harmony with their planet's, Pandora's, environment.  Twelve feet tall and blue felines, humans cannot walk amoungst them, since the air is lethal.  So 'avatars' are created and humans can control them and fit into their small band and society. But there's still a male dominated society, there's still sexual politics, there're still... us. It was evident that Mr. Cameron did not, at the very least, research indigenous peoples in any manner.  Love magically spawns between two people that cannot be more dissimilar and, yes, his ego shines right through the flat motion picture. It was more like a ride at Disney World than an actual movie.  Filmed in Imax, as mentioned, and 3-D, the images included us in the tale, pulled us in on a level like never before.

So that's a Na'vi. They look like thin people and just as angry.

We had bizarre alien animals floating around our heads, the lights flew out of the screen and into our laps. A digital acid trip.

Which brings us to this review.

There are no Avatar conventions. No one chooses to be a native Na'vi when they cosplay. They don't study the fictional language, like Klingon.

Yes, I'm making broad generalizations. But, truly, think about it and it's place in pop culture.

If you squint, really hard, you might see a Na'vi. Maybe? 

I was surprised when they selected the intellectual property at all. A popular (well, if you look at the cash flow) movie (not critically, me included), licensed it (it is Fox) and just went with it.

Here's the thing.

It works, if only for a bit.

Even with my hardened distaste for the movie, Disney did something with it that even Mr. Cameron couldn't. They made it more interesting. It's much more interesting than the movie, that's for sure. Every optical illusion the movie created? Ever moment of CGI digital amazement?

Created in real time. That jaw dropping concept is right there. See, the planet/moon/whatever, Pandora has lower gravity than Earth. Chunks of the ground float in space.

And they do here, too. In real time.  Real plants blend with bleching, glowing mushrooms, and moving roots.  Tree stumps echo music when you bounce them like a drum. There's a true sense of place.

One of those fabricated plants that does...stuff.

We were given a 3 hour time slice, but really, I noticed we left early.

Because it is, physically very small. It's vertical, reaching to the sky, but it doesn't spread out. The Imagineers have pathways, this way and that, and photographers everywhere, encouraging further photos, but it's small, like Mickey's Birthdayland or their current Circusland back by the train station in Fantasyland.

What brief tale there is, Alpha Centauri Expeditions (ACE) are offering guests eco-tourism to the small moon. Of course, it's a six month stint in a sleep pod, but that part might have been dropped.

It's so small they built only two attractions, one on top of another. The first plays like an introduction to the imagination behind it, called the Na'vi River Journey. The queue is beautiful, a tent like structure, with wicker folk art that looks like smoke and fire. From the tent? Puft. You are in a cave and it's night. No transition, like on Pirates of the Caribbean.  It's a bit jarring. What is also jarring? This is beautiful. That's it. I've heard several complaints, not completely unwarranted, about this. There's no tale to be told, just creative lighting and movement. Strangely, I'm okay with it. I noticed video screens cleverly located throughout the ride, so more story could be added, I suppose, after the sequels finally open. There is a fifth generation audioanimatronic on the ride, but in today's day and age, I don't think everyone really appreciates it. She moves and sings and has a huge range of motion, to the point you begin to wonder if she'll say your name gleaned from your Magic Band ticket. But the lack of a story? Pirates didn't have one when it opened, It's a Small World really doesn't either. I'm okay with it. What is also nice? The boats are only two rows. There's a feeling that this is private and I noticed people speaking in hushed tones.

Someone took time to make this wicker art in the queue at River Journey. And it's beautiful.

The other attraction? The Flights of Passage. At first, like a delicious bottle of Coke, hit me and it was a sugar rush. It's a Soarin' kind of exhibit, a huge screen that flies you out and over the native terrain. It does break some new ground. It's more of a motorcycle seat this time around, not the usual movie seats. There's a small camera, so you can hyperlink to your avatar before riding on one of the dragon-like 'banshees' from the movie. With the new physical placement of the guest, they have added more tactile components. Now you can feel the breathing and heartbeat of the animal you are mounted on, along with the usual tilts and leans. Plus, like Back to the Future and the Simpsons over at Universal, you are broken up into teams of 8 for each experience. That means it feels more like a personal experience, not one that you are sharing with a few hundred sweaty strangers. Lastly, they didn't go the route of some any other attractions, where 'something goes wrong' and the ride's conflict increases. Instead, like the River Journey,  you are just flying through some breathtaking visuals. It was evident, here, too, that the images were digitally projected. That means they can replace the film probably with more elements from the sequel.

More wicker art, this one a flying beast, called a Banshee, heralding the start of the queue.

It also shows a confidence. They are going out on a Disney limb here. I admire that and that sways my opinion more positive than negative. They expanded their culinary talents with creative food that are truly creature comforts presented imaginatively-like Japanese bowls of noodles or Chinese "bao" called pods. Drinks dotted with fruit flavored tapioca balls. A creative 'rookery' where you buy the banshee from earlier in baby (puppet) form and have it perch on your shoulder. You can even get a 3-D printed avatar action figure of, well, yourself.

Bao? Bao.

So, yes, massive creativity.

But we still left early.

And, like that can of Coke, I noticed my sugar rush ran flat the closer I got to the parking lot. The scope is there, but why? There's a sense that this is temporary, that there's more to come. And that leaves a bit of something. The potential is there, yes, but I kept wanting more. I heard that there's even more fun at night, with light up pavement and the flora moving. Maybe? Will that make it?

I don't think it's worth of a solitary trip, however. I don't think this is a game changer, something that will lengthen a person's day at the half-day park. I do think it is a wonderful addition and it is impressive. I'm also curious to see what else they will achieve with further updates.

Movie (?) Review: The Handmaid's Tale

Yeah, I did put a question mark in there. This film, for lack of a better term, rides a very different track that I have to acknowledge before I get down to the review's brass tacks. This particular work appears only on Hulu right now. And I watch it on my television. Only it's not built like a tv show. There's a moment, when you binge watch something on one of these subscription services, where you can see the jet black cutout for a commercial. It was made for and, well, written directly with the concept that there's going to be a commercial. So I know and interpret it as being television. Back in my younger years, when I did summer stock, one of our assignments was to create a soap, to write one of those intricate tales of multiple short scenes. And we were taught, you create from commercial to commercial.

So, even though I was watching this ON my television, it had nothing linked to it being television. In fact, it's episodic nature suggested it could probably be seen as some kind of mini-series.

Fate knows, I loved me some Shogun back in the day. Made me read the book. Couldn't put it down, in fact.

Because it was four thousand bazillion pages.

It's important that link this to the book, that book. See, there's something I've noticed, and maybe I've mentioned it here over time.

See, this particular, I don't know, event-movie, is based on a book that raised in relevancy since the erection of 45. Dystopian novels have made a surge lately. Now, I've noticed that, whenever we have a Flat Earth Society Member in charge, and, yes, I'm looking at you 80s, dystopian tales are back in vogue.

1984.

Blade Runner.

Cyberpunk.

The Giver 

Yeah, sure, Dems have movies too (zombie movies...think faceless masses that follow without thinking...wait, that sounds like the GOP too). But I'd like to focus on this aspect. Books. Now, common thought is that the "book was better."

That's usually correct.

It makes sense. Pages of prose elaborate the story so that the reader's journey is eased into the theme with more detail and length. We get it a bit easier. Movies? Not so much. You have dialogue and images. All of it live, before a camera. Severely limiting. However, such a boundary gives the filmmaker a new source of creativity-a way of communicating chosen thematic elements to a movie bound audience.

I, for one, am okay with this. Totally okay. Dances with Wolves is a boring, shit of a journal with scribbled images. Then? The movie gave us those open vistas the protagonist was experiencing. Gone With the Wind? That racist tome? The edges were honed off and the story shone a bit a brighter in the new light.  

But let's cut to the television, shall we?

Steve King's Salem's Lot, directed by Tobe Hooper-for television.

SCARED THE SHIT OUT OF ME.

Shogun? Huge book. Huge series. But every storyline was captured and we were able to follow.

The elaboration all ties together, so if you're still with me, here it goes.

The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, is excellent. And, in part, because the format it is in really enriches it.  Currently playing over there on Hulu, they've retooled some aspects, using cell phones and a bit more modern tech, and then showing it being shunned by the Church Elite. Now, in case you are not aware, the book is about a world slightly in the future, where women have finally lost all rights to their bodies. A viral infection is suggested, affecting fertility in the human race and woman are unable to conceive. It's a horrible alternative future, but a possible situation if womens' rights to their bodies are still contested into the next few decades. In this story, abortions are made illegal and any vision of sex as for anything but child creation is criminal. Any sex outside of marriage is seen as rape and men are scratched to death. A new, faith based, theocracy arises and those who don't worship are seen as subversives and punished.

The book is a page turner as it follows one such woman, who is able to have children, so she's enslaved to a wealthy family. She dreams of her past life and only wishes for escape to find the children who were taken away from her. She's labelled a "handmaiden," and forced to work for the upper 1%.

See? Kinda timely as 45 gives us a tax plan that only benefits himself and those who are wealthy.

All the while using the church's pews as his voting base.

Art reflecting life?

The book had already been made into a movie, but, in this case, given the gift of horrible timing, the story can thrive. And especially in this format. Now we can see women and their suffered glances and muffled thoughts, not in a five minute monologue on a cinema screen, but, instead, in the intimate confines of our private homes. Here is where the message is successful.

And what a presentation. As media tries to grow in this new Information Age, this new piecemeal approach is the way of the future. We are basically paying to avoid commercials. But we get something from it. A strong narrative that isn't hung up on advertising and putting Coke cans in the background. The source material is respected and given the beats it needs to help the audience grow in compassion for these young women who are not allowed to think or act for themselves. I like the movie.

If that's what we want to call it. It's well presented, well acted, slickly edited, and, yes, massively timely.

The only thing I see as a drawback? Sometimes a series becomes uneven. It's the nature of the beast. Just some points of a tale are more poignant than others, and, when different directors are involved, there are slight tone changes.

Watch this movie/serial/Hulu thingie. It's good. And it's important.