Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: May 21st, 2011

SPOILERS throughout review

Plot (3/5):

Being the first Pirates film to follow a novel, this installment has the best plot structure. It's still overly complicated but it's certainly toned down to a notch. The problem surfaces when a few subplots are forced into the main story. This would be the unconvincing romance storyline between the Phillip (the priest man) and a mermaid named Syrena. Interesting and quite engaging choice of romance but not at the right place; this film should've just been an adventure film. There's still a little too much going on and a little too much exposition we don't need. If the film was just an intense race between the Spanish, the English and the pirates, it could've been a very successful adventure film.

Characters (2/5):

The problem with Jack Sparrow in this film is that he has become an uninteresting character. He still does the same thing: he waves his arms around, drinks and is the comedic antihero he was. However this has grown to be stale. There is too much Jack Sparrow that we do not want: unfunny and over-doing it.

Penelope Cruz portrays the oh-so-cliche female lead who is an ex-love interest to the protagonist and now has to work with him. This has been done before so many times and so much better. While the physical atmosphere of the couple is cute and humorous, it takes up an excessive amount of screen time without really developing anything. Cruz's involvement is very appreciated though.

Blackbeard was the villain we wanted. His introduction is very well done: nobody on the ship has seen him and he stays in his cabin until a mutiny occurs. The camera slowly reveals the angry antagonist and he is extremely vicious. In fact the film proves it by showing a scene where he executes a man. But then again we have already seen Davy Jones, we've seen Feng and we've seen the scarier pirates. Blackbeard is just not as threatening when the protagonist is in control of him (if Sparrow doesn't lead him to the Fountain of Youth, Blackbeard will die).

Performances (4/5):

Despite the weaker characters, the cast is doing fine. Ian McShane is right on for Black Beard and Penelope Cruz is right on for Angelica. I was not pleased with the stereotypical accent they gave Cruz. There is a stale performance from Johnny Depp; this is not a criticism towards Depp but the screenplay for the lack of freshness of his character.

Specifics (3/5):

Lots of visually stunning action. Once again it's a film with lots of fights that are cleverly done with outstanding stunts (just think of the first battle between Sparrow and Will Turner in the Smithing room in the first movie; On Stranger Tides is full of action sequences like this). However more does not necessarily mean better in this case. A lot of the action is not entertaining. Part of the reason is because this series has been old and has lost its adventurous freshness. On Stranger Tides is a standard addition to its franchise. The mermaids were one of the new things we've seen and the film because more engaging in the second act. One thing this film has done well is building suspense. We see that in the introduction of Blackbeard and in the mermaid scene.

By the way, the music is still awesome.

Theme (1/5):

Why? Why did they attempt to bring in a moral into the film near the end? It was completely out of the blue. The attempted theme is brought to us by Jack and his first mate who come to a conclusion that nobody should know too much about how their lives will end and that life should be enjoyed at the present. No, just no. A silly approach with no transition. The movie does not show Jack learning this value and there is no character transition or experience that would allow him to think like this.

Dialogue (N/A)

Overall (2.5/5):

It's better than the first Pirates film as this one didn't leave a lot of unwanted questions that weren't answered. The entertainment value however is lacking compared to the previous installments. The third act is quite redemptive in bringing this film up to an okay summer flick.

Source Code :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: May 6th, 2011



Plot (4/5):
Our protagonist Stevens is trapped in a capsule by the government; he is given a mission to explore the past event (this is not time travelling, only a projection of the past in which he can explore in) in which a train bombing has occurred. Every time he goes back, he has eight minutes to gather more information and find out who bombed the train so that the police can arrest the bomber in the real world. 'Source Code' certainly has an interesting premise. However I feared that maybe the movie might pull a 'Sucker Punch' on me; the mission can get extremely repetitive. But thankfully the film knows how to cut to the chase by the third or fourth time Stevens is sent to the past. It's also fun to see how Stevens learns what's going to happen so by the next time he goes back to the past, he knows they are going to happen. He acts like a god or rather like a man who's playing a video game and using the method of trial and error; this is awesome for the audience to see because everyone has thought about gaining omnipotence. The film can be humorous, suspenseful and likable. It's unfortunate the film pulls a stunt at the end with a huge lack of information and that's a big minus.

Characters (1/5):
The character development for this film is quite terrible. First of all the protagonist is involved in a conflict with his father and this distracts him many times during his mission. Unfortunately we never get a scene of this actual conflict and it's not enough for us to care. For a conflict so impacting (as Stevens wastes trials of going back to the past a few times) the film lacks too much to have an emotional scene at the end. It's not sympathy provoking; how can it be when we don't even know what happened? Secondly, the worst aspect of this film is the chemistry between Jake Gyllenhaal (Stevenson) and Michelle Monaghan's character (Christina). There is NO reason for their characters to fall in love. After all it's an eight minute projection Stevenson is going through and Christina's memories reset every trial. What can he do in eight minutes to fall in love her? He's busy looking for the bomb most of the time where is the time?? Where did the sudden kiss come from? This movie is abysmal with its characters. The antagonist can be interchangeable with anybody as he has no characteristics at all.

Performance (5/5)
Give the actors credit for trying hard and making a believable performance despite the fact that the screenplay is a mess at attempting "characters". Gyllenhaal is a great actor, he's great in this film, again it's just a shame his character is so badly written.

Specifics (3/5):
I so wish they would've just stopped the film when the plug is pulled on Stevens and everything goes into freeze frame. This way the movie doesn't have to lack information to explain the ending and it creates an open ending for audiences to discuss much like Inception.

Theme (3/5):
The themes are quite similar to The Adjustment Bureau. Free will, destiny, etc etc; Not fully developed due to the lack of character development as mention above. The film tries to have a moral by the end.

Dialogue (3/5):
Not so good from time to time. There are a lot of lines that 1. don't move the story forward, 2. reveal a character, 3. create tension. So basically a lot of clutter that we don't need. Also Stevenson does get a handful of one liners that just seem random and unnecessary. Regardless, the dialogue doesn't bother me much.

Overall (3/5):

This is just an average summer flick. There is no outstanding quality to this film for me to laud. It doesn't call for a second view or more but it's safe to say I had fun in the theaters.

Thor :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: April 30th, 2011

Plot (3/5):

Thor's origin story is quite different from other superheros. Partially because he already is one. The plot focuses more on the transition of character rather than the super power obtaining process. Therefore the story might feel like there hasn't been much of a change. Personally I never got the feeling that Thor was a superhero from this movie. The first Act of Thor is purely about him in Asgard and is overly developed. Not much information and too much screen time. This becomes a problem because Thor and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) lack character development and chemistry. They do go through the basic formula and requirements for the film to be entertaining and it works; it's not that they don't have anything, it's that they lack substance. The movie feels very short and is enjoyable to a degree. It's not as mind blowing as I had hoped for.

It's also fun to imagine how 'Thor' takes place in the same universe as Iron Man's. While Iron Man was all scientific, 'Thor' is a myth and it's interesting how the films cross over each other.

Characters (2/5):
Again, because of the unnecessarily long first act, 'Thor' has very little time to develop its characters. It's hard to see the reckless, arrogant god transform to a humble, mature superhero. What was the motivation for his character change? Was it just merely the punishment of being banished from Asgard? Probably not. Portman's character's purpose was to help Thor transform him to a better person. However they lack a lot of chemistry; they only get one scene together and it's just not enough. Yes, Thor shows that he has become self less by sacrificing himself for Jane but that shows that he loved her. Thor was loving before and in addition when did he fall in love with Jane? Again the problem all originates from the fact that the movie has a lot of its screen time taken away from the first act. I truly believe that the writers were capable of developing better characters however from the result, Thor is quite underdeveloped. Also the movie has a lot of supporting characters that add pretty much nothing to the story. All of Thor's god friends can be replaceable with each other and as for the character Darcy, she is not essential either. Another huge problem is that I didn't get a good sense on the antagonist's motives and intentions. Loki is a sympathetic villain, yes but does he want revenge on his foster father Odin for hiding the fact that he was a frost giant? Or does he want to wipe of the frost giants? Or both? Well, it doesn't really matter because the humans on earth aren't much in danger. Loki sends the Destroyer to kill Thor not the humans which is why Thor doesn't feel like he's "saving" the world. Loki's character wants to prove himself worthy; but he's hostile towards both the Asgardians and the frost giants so that cancels his motive out. There's a lot of problems to mention in this section.

Performance (5/5):
Solid performances. No, don't expect an Oscar nomination from Anthony Hopkins. He's not portraying a groundbreaking character like Hannibal Lector. He's just doing his job, acting suitably for Odin. And Chris Hemsworth is likable, funny and convincing. The true star I must say is Hiddleston though. He's a true sympathy provoker. Heimdall is also quite the badass; not much acting is required but the actor does his job of being emotionless.

Specifics (3/5):
The action sequences were there. The climactic battle was underwhelming but the dramatic confrontation between Thor and Loki makes up for that. I didn't watch the film in 3-D but from what I've seen, it's quite meaningless. The scenery is beautiful and the computer graphic images do look like a video game here. It's all very metal-y looking but it didn't bother me. The Iron Man references are humorous and I liked how Marvel is starting to combine these universes together (even the Hulk is mentioned).

Theme (4/5):

Arrogance, selfishness, and humbleness; these are the reoccurring themes. They are easily identifiable as the protagonist and the antagonist go through the same stage of wanting to prove themselves. However Thor is the one that makes the better choice and changes for the better.

Dialogue (4/5):

Funny dialogue as expected from the trailer. This is basically the same typ of dialogue from the other Marvel movies. Not as much one liners as an action flick but still there for humour while the dramatic moments remain dramatic rather than becoming corny. Good script.

Overall (3/5):

It's a fun flick that I won't mind watching twice or three times. I tried not to compare it with 'Iron Man' but we all know that this is inevitable...and 'Thor' is not as outstanding. So far I like what Marvel is doing and I'm hyped for the 'Avengers'. How Thor is going to go back to earth and join the Avengers, we have yet to find out.