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

Year: 2017
Running Time: 129 minutes
Directors: Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg
Writers: Jeff Nathanson (story and screenplay), Terry Rossio (story)
Cast: Johnny Depp, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelairo, Geoffrey Rush, David Wenham, Kavin McNally, Martin Klebba, Stephen Graham, Golshifteh Farahani, Orlando Bloom

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures and will open in Australian cinemas on Thursday May 25 and in the United States on Friday May 26.

How did we ever get a fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film?

14 years after we first met Johnny Depp's eccentric buccaneer Captain Jack Sparrow in The Curse of the Black Pearl, the franchise is still plodding along with impressive box office returns, but unable to hold a candle to the original first film. The good news is that while Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales may be blatantly imperfect, it is nevertheless entertaining, enjoyable and a rewarding return to the spirit of the first film.

The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has it's fair share of critics and those who wonder how in the world it got to a fifth film, but it's loyalists understand the fascination with the series and why Jack Sparrow continues to intrigue. One only has to look at the inspiration for the original film to understand it's staying power.

The Pirates of the Caribbean ride at California's Disneyland was opened to the public on March 18, 1967, which was 12 years after the park was opened and it was the last ride which Walt Disney himself had a hand in designing. Despite the New Orleans Square ride being one of the oldest in the theme park, it has drawn steady crowds since it's opening and is still considered by many to be  their favourite Disney attraction. The Pirates ride is by no means the best way to get your adrenalin pumping at Disneyland, but the boat ride which takes you through the wild and scandalous Audio-Animatronic world of the Caribbean never fails to delight park-goers.

The reason for the ride's ongoing success is that the concept and world of pirates has and always will excite and intrigue. Along with that unmistakable Disney magic, this is exactly why the film franchise is still going strong and attracting audiences over a decade later. In recent times, Disney are the only one's who have been able to successfully convey the dark and dangerous world of swashbuckling pirates to the big screen and combine it with the light-hearted humour and enjoyment that makes pirates simultaneously fun and thrilling. They do this so successfully that a fifth film is not surprising nor a terrible idea.

Despite the worry that the franchise was starting to tire, Dead Men Tell No Tales is the strongest in the series since the original film. Depp returns as Captain Jack Sparrow to search for Poseidon's trident with new allies, Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites) and Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelairo), when an old and menacing enemy, Captain Salazar (terrifyingly portrayed by Javier Bardem) reappears.

The new film is far from flawless with it's complicated story that is initially hard to follow, it's tendency to be goofy rather than funny at times and evident holes in it's screenplay (much like The Curse of The Black Pearl). However, it is nevertheless entertaining, enjoyable and painless viewing. As well as being perhaps the most visually attractive of the franchise so far with it's incredible special effects, cinematography and production design, it rewards the loyal Pirates of the Caribbean fans by building on the stories of past characters (including Orlando Bloom's Will Turner) and giving more background to others, specifically Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa.

While the resounding question is made about whether Pirates of the Caribbean is still relevant, the same is undeniably being said about Depp and his Captain Jack Sparrow. After Depp was nominated by the Academy for his portrayal of the beloved antihero in The Curse of the Black Pearl, the screenwriters for the past four films (including Dead Men Tell No Tales) have given his character many recurring quotes and eccentricities...many of which have become tiresome and lack the amusement they once did. Depp is fine in Dead Men Tell No Tales and truth be told, starts the film a great deal more irritating than he finishes it. However, the inevitable question is whether it is now time for Depp to hang up his pirate hat and say goodbye to Captain Jack Sparrow?

For many the answer would be yes...but there would almost certainly be no other pirate protagonist quite like Jack Sparrow. Love him or hate him, there is no one quite like him and it would almost be impossible to reimagine a character like him to lead future Pirates of the Caribbean films..presuming there will be more. The reason fans will be praying for me is the fact that Dead Men Tell No Tales only scratched the surface of Jack's past and there is so much still to be told.

However, one would also not be disappointed for another film if Paul McCartney was to reprise his role as Uncle Jack, as it is undoubtedly one of the best scenes of the film.

We may not have needed a new Pirates of the Caribbean film, but Dead Men Tell No Tales is a thoroughly entertaining and rewarding experience for those who have stuck around hoping that the franchise is able to return to the glory days of The Curse of the Black Pearl.

7/10

Alice Through The Looking Glass (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 113 minutes
Director: James Bobin
Writers: Lewis Carroll (books), Linda Woolverton (screenplay)
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, Alan Rickman, Rhys Ifans, Timothy Spall, Matt Lucas, Lindsay Duncan, Leo Bill

Alice Through The Looking Glass is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictures

When one thinks about the thought process that must have taken place when deciding to do a sequel to the live action Alice in Wonderland, you could well imagine it would have been along the lines of
"Everyone else is doing it, why not?"

Alice Through The Looking Glass is a cross between a sequel and an en vogue origins film. Underneath it's somewhat monotonous yet very attractive abstract exterior, the film has some interesting and enjoyable character studies of those larger than life personalities made popular by Lewis Carroll in the 1800's. The Tim Burton directed 2010 film had people divided with many not enjoying the over the top spectacle created and the liberties that Disney took with the story and it's characters, while others were quite happy with the film's flamboyancy they felt it captured the true surreal nature of the original story itself.

In the second Disney live-action Alice film, James Bobin takes over the reins from Tim Burton who 's presence is still greatly felt throughout the film as he steps into the role as producer. Alice Through The Looking Glass does not have much in common with the book in which it is based on, "Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found" by Lewis Carroll. In fact, the original Disney animated Alice in Wonderland in 1951 draws more inspiration from this book than this 2016 film does. Disney took great liberties with the 2010 film, which was not entirely a bad thing as it breathed new life into the story that has been adapted many times for film. These liberties continue into the new film which means that the only aspects of it that resemble the book are it's title and that Alice does, funnily enough, re-enter Wonderland through a looking glass.

Upon returning from her voyage as captain of the ship, the Wonder, Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) find herself still ridiculed for being a woman and is hardly taken seriously when trying to conduct business transactions. When she is starting to lose faith in herself and in the impossible, she is once again transported back to Wonderland through the looking glass and finds her friend, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) in a terrible state. She is able to help him, but this requires going back in time and altering the past to stop Hatter falling into darkness in the future.

Once again, the great focus on the Mad Hatter in this film does feel as though the filmmakers are trying to maximise the use of Johnny Depp. This is not saying that Depp does a bad job, but it is not a particularly complicated performance either. The relationship with the Hatter that Alice has and had in the first film is far from what Lewis Carroll had in mind when he wrote the book and this is one of the things that audiences found and will find problematic. Had the Mad Hatter been played by anyone else besides Depp would his part in these two films been as large? Quite possibly not. Yet with Tim Burton at the helm in 2010 he was always the obvious choice for the role. Even without Burton, if one had to name the working actor who would make the best Hatter in a live-action Alice in Wonderland, Depp's name would have immediately sprung to mind. However, the right casting of an actor who is known for his quirky roles as one of literature's quirkiest characters still does not do much to ease the uncomfortable thought that the character was reimagined purely to suit him.

Had Alice Through The Looking Glass been purely an origins story about each of the characters and their backgrounds, it may have been a great deal more entertaining and enjoyable. The same can be said for if it was purely a sequel about what happened the next time Alice went to Wonderland. Yet it is the fact that it tries to do both of these things in one film that makes it weak as a whole. Bobin's film does try to be too many things which is where it's impact as a spectacle and as any type of emotional experience is lost. The flying back and forwards between time is not as much confusing as it is purely dizzying and irritating. However, the idea of Time being part man and part machine as portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen is a clever one and is a great addition to the array of interesting characters that already exist in the film and makes the time travel bearable.

With the characters come many opportunities for emotion and depth, particularly with the Mad Hatter's inner torment and between sisters, the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). However, Depp, Carter and Hathaway do give the right amount of emotion for what is written into the story and none give a bad performance by any means, but any more tears or affection would actually seem out of place considering the lack of intensity in the film.

It is a shame because visually Alice Through The Looking Glass is extraordinary and often quite intense, particularly in the opening ocean scenes and when Alice is using the Chronosphere to transport herself back and forward through time. The production design for inside the world that is Wonderland and especially that of Time's castle is extraordinary and the use of colour is magnificent. Yet it is here in the visuals that Alice Through The Looking Glass's power is and not in the screenplay. Although screenwriter Linda Woolverton has attempted to make a film that is intended to be character driven, Bobin has neglected to take the time to allow the audience to sympathize and relate to the characters.

However, Mia Wasikowska should be complimented on her obvious growth as an actress since her breakthrough role as Alice in the 2010 film. Even from the very first scene, she is a great deal more powerful in her delivery than in Alice in Wonderland and like all leading ladies should be, gives the best performance out of anybody in the film. One thing that both the earlier film and this one have tried to do is install a sense of independence into Alice and make her a good role model for young girls, which is something that Wasikowska has been able to accomplish.

Any type of "Alice in Wonderland" adaptation is met with a certain sense of magic and despite the weak and busy screenplay, Alice Through The Looking Glass still maintains a whimsical air.

5.5/10

Into The Woods (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 125 minutes
Director: Rob Marshall
Writers: Stephen Sondheim (musical), James Lapine (musical and screenplay)
Cast: Emily Blunt, James Corden, Anna Kendrick, Meryl Streep, Daniel Huttlestone, Lilla Crawford, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Tammy Blanchard, Tracy Ullman, Johnny Depp, Chris Pine, Mackenzie Mauzy, Billy Magnussen

Into The Woods is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

Disney's venture Into The Woods may not be the same feel good live action film the world is accustomed to seeing from the studio, but does not fail to entertain audiences, especially those who are fantasy and musical lovers. While Rob Marshall's film is a lot of fun with it's witty and enjoyable screenplay and musical numbers, it is also rather unexpectedly deep and metaphorical. The film does a great deal more than just impressively recreate some of the most loved fairytales and in doing so is pleasantly surprising in numerous ways.

A married couple who live and work in a bakery (Emily Blunt and James Corden) are desperate for children, but are unable to conceive. They are at a loss as to why this is until one day the Witch from next door (Meryl Streep) arrives and tells them that she placed a curse on the household long ago and to break the curse they must bring her all she desires. The baker and his wife set out into the woods to fetch the red cape from Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), the hair as yellow as corn from Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), the glass slipper from Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) and the cow as white as milk from Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) for the Witch. When all is said and done, it looks as though everyone has had their wish fulfilled and will live happily ever after. However, that is not the way things work out for any of them as they all venture into the woods once again together.

Director Rob Marshall and writer of both screenplay and musical (which he co-wrote with Stephen Sondheim) James Lapine have done a fine job of adapting Into The Woods for the screen. This is what audiences must remember when judging Into The Woods. It is adapted from a stage musical and much of what can be said about the story good or bad relates more to the original musical than the adapted screenplay. One of the aspects of the film which reminds you that this is so is the notion that Into The Woods feels like two different films in one. The only reason it feels like that is because there are two acts in the stage musical and they are of completely different atmospheres. Because of this, people not familiar with the musical will feel as though the film is quite lengthy, which at barely over two hours this is hardly the case. The majority of the screenplay remains true to the original Into The Woods, yet several songs were abandoned for the film (while one song was added to the soundtrack) and the dark atmosphere slightly lifted so to make a more family friendly film.

Into The Woods knows it's target audience well. The film is well suited to lovers of fairytales and musicals, as those who do not appreciate musicals will not enjoy the fact that the majority of the storytelling is told through song. However, Into The Woods is saying a lot more to it's audience than is vocalised through the dialogue and lyrics. The overall theme is the universally acknowledged notion that there is realistically no such thing as a happily ever after. There is such thing as perfect for the time being, but no life or love is forever without some sort of complication. Fairytales install in children unrealistic expectations of the world, which is why the film reminds us that children are listening, so be careful what you tell them. The story takes fairytales to a place they are not traditionally taken to by asking the questions no one asks of them. Why did Cinderella really run from the man she loved? Was Rapunzel ever troubled by losing the woman who raised her? Is Prince Charming really the man he makes every one believe he is, or is he really just charming? The title of Into The Woods is literal, but also metaphorical as walking through life can be like walking through the woods in its unpredictability and terror.

The mash-up of the fairytales is very well done, but some stories are given a lot more love and attention than others. In particular the Rapunzel storyline doesn't have a great deal to offer and is almost non-existent in the second half of the film. However, it is understandable that at least one of the stories within the film was going to be limited as the film's running time needed to be kept in mind, especially considering this is a family film. Yet, the screenplay is extremely witty with brilliant dialogue and entertaining and enjoyable musical productions, especially the elegant "On The Steps of The Place" and hilarious "Agony". The production design is absolutely exquisite with very little CGI used and the film is very atmospheric as the woods are designed with an air of mystery and darkness that is felt by the audience.

Into The Woods boasts an impressive cast with performances that may surprise. Emily Blunt and James Corden work very well together on screen and their relationship is comedic in the most realistic of ways. Blunt appears in her first musical role and stuns with her beautiful singing voice. Anna Kendrick is certainly no stranger to musicals with her Broadway background and past roles in Camp and Pitch Perfect (as well as the upcoming sequel to the latter and The Last 5 Years), but truly shows her vocal range and is exquisite as Cinderella. She is incredibly likable and the most naturalistic Cinderella to grace the screen.

Meryl Streep does not disappoint as the Witch. She is full of character and shows another side to the Witch who lives in these fairytales, which is that of a Witch with a past that has shaped her. Chris Pine is a real surprise packet as Cinderella's Prince Charming. It is a completely different role for Pine and hearing him sing is surprising, but not a terrible experience at all. His performance is formed around a parody of fairytale princes and is really quite amusing. Young Daniel Huttlestone, who plays Jack, is also a standout with incredible acting ability and a lovely voice.

While there is a moral to most stories we tell our children, what Into The Woods has to say about life through the way the fairytales are told is a great deal more helpful and insightful. The film is surprising, but pleasing for many reasons, but won't delight those who don't enjoy musicals as much as those who do.

7.5/10

Transcendence (2014)

Year: 2014
Running Time: 119 minutes
Director: Wally Pfister
Writer: Jack Paglen
Cast: Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Morgan Freeman, Paul Bettany, Cillian Murphy, Kate Mara, Cole Hauser

Transcendence attempts the uncommon Hollywood walk into unprecedented territory with it's ambition and creativity. The result is a well made piece of cinema, but one that doesn't have a particularly neat screenplay. The principle that Transcendence is based on is indeed interesting, yet it tries to be too intelligent and ends up getting lost within itself. The result being a film which is enjoyable to watch, but not particularly memorable.

Will Caster (Johnny Depp) and his wife, Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) are well known researchers in the field of Artificial Intelligence, a field which many believe is unethical and are opposed to. After an encounter with a radical, Will's life becomes a time bomb and Evelyn and the Caster's friend and work colleague, Max Waters (Paul Bettany) work towards fulfilling Will's legacy with Will as the subject this time. However, nobody ever realised how far Will's memory would go.

There are two major underlying themes of Transcendence and the screenplay is moulded around these two themes. One theme is executed beautifully and the other has trouble trying to execute itself in a coherent and believable fashion. Firstly there is the theme of the ethical question of A.I. The film wants to make us ponder how far can you take A.I. before it becomes unethical. In the film we see this ideas taken to a place which demonstrates the dangers of relying on A.I., as well as on technology (a more common theme in film). However, the point which it takes us to to show us this is so extreme and it becomes a little too farfetched to be taken seriously. Not only farfetched, the basis for the story is nearly impossible and there are quite a few holes in the film which are apparent to anyone whether they are technologically minded or not. The film gives the impression of wanting to seem so spectacular and mind blowing that it ends up confusing itself as well as it's audience. It leaves the audience feeling as though they are confused, but not because of the intellectual side as much as because the execution hasn't been as believable as it should be.

The theme of grief in the film is the one that is more successful in it's execution, but clouded over by the technological side of the film. As Transcendence is first and foremost a sci-fi film, it is understandable why this theme is not the main focus, but it is still lost in the confusion more than what it should be. In the film, Evelyn is a grieving wife who's inability to let go of her husband is one of the reasons everything gets so out of hand. Her grief distorts her perception of reality, which is not uncommon for people in her situation. She hangs on to the memory of her husband and believes everything she must in order to believe that Will is still around. While grieving in the real world such a situation as this wouldn't happen, but Evelyn's behaviour is perfectly executed in the film for someone grieving the loss of their soul mate.

Despite the screenplay bringing the film down, the production side of the film is a lot more successful. Visually the film is wonderful to look at and the production design exquisite. With each location you feel as though you really are there, such as in the Caster's garden or in the laboratory. The quirky little town Evelyn travels too is incredibly interesting to see on screen.

Johnny Depp may be the top billed actor in Transcendence, but he really doesn't have too much to do in the film. There is nothing wrong with his performance, it is more that he doesn't actually physically appear in the film a great deal and his role is particularly limited in what he can do with it. A great deal more of the film belongs to Rebecca Hall. She does very well as the grieving wife and gives a particularly moving performance. Even when Will's presence is in her life after his death, she still gives the impression of a broken and fragile woman while she wasn't this before his death. The chemistry between Depp and Hall is not as strong in the first part of the film as it is in the latter part.

Paul Bettany is very good in his role as Max Waters. Bettany has the wonderful ability in this film of being able to portray exactly how he is feeling without saying a word, which is evident even in the first scene when he is in the garden. His performance is a particularly emotional and endearing one. His Max is the voice of reason in Evelyn's dark hours, but even then you can tell that it is not an easy thing for him to do.

Transcendence is a highly interesting film to talk about for it's confusing execution of an interesting subject. It tries hard, but doesn't seem to realise how to execute itself efficiently.

5.5/10

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Year: 2013
Director:  Gore Verbinski
Cast: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Helena Bonham Carter, Tom Wilkinson, William Fichtner, Ruth Wilson
The Lone Ranger is now showing in cinemas everywhere

Not much good has been said about  Disney's The Lone Ranger since it has been released.

Straight off the bat, the expectations for The Lone Ranger were always going to be incredibly high for the fact that it's production company is Walt Disney Studios. Disney are one company who are always capable of creating a classic. It is true that The Lone Ranger may not be a classic, but it is definitely not the worst movie of 2013. It is far from the best, but there is something about this bunch of silliness that does make it entertaining enough.

In 1866, a train chugs towards the future carrying lawyer, John Reid (Armie Hammer), as well as prisoners, convicted criminal, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) and Indian, Tonto (Johnny Depp). Cavendish escapes in what appears to be a set up, which leads to a man hunt by John's brother, Dan (James Badge Dale) and the deaths of all the search party at the hands of a traitor. In a strange turn of events, John starts working with Tonto and finds out more than he would have liked to have known about the dealings of the white people with the Indians of the land.

Based on an American legend, The Lone Ranger is all just a bit silly. It is so over the top and cliché in it's execution and there is really nothing you can take seriously about it. The romance aspect of the film adds nothing to the story and really could have been cut out of the film entirely, which would have shortened it's 149 minute running time. The idea of having an elderly Tonto tell a young boy at a San Francisco fairground the story is also completely useless and the film would have flowed a lot better if it was told in real time rather than a series of flashbacks. Therefore, it is the screenplay, written by Justin Haythe, Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, that is one of the key factors in what fails to make this film a Disney classic. The story itself isn't too bad as it does have some unpredictable revelations, but the screenplay tries to do a little too much.

As it is promoted, The Lone Ranger is from the same people who have brought us Pirates Of The Caribbean. So what a lot of people are saying and quite rightly so is that this is a western version of Pirates Of The Caribbean. Chances are if you weren't a fan of those swash-buckling films, you won't be a fan of this film. Johnny Depp's Tonto is a native American version of Captain Jack Sparrow and the choreography of the action scenes is also very similar. The good thing is that if you are one of those people who did love the Pirates films, then you may be a fan.

However, the good news is that with all it's faults, The Lone Ranger is at least entertaining. The best part of the film is the last half an hour which is almost like a cleverly composed dance number set in the west. The musical score is almost strangely selected, but does serve its purpose by setting the scene and creating a feeling of suspense and excitement. A great film needs to be this the whole way through, but the last 30 minutes is worth watching the whole film for.

Johnny Depp has always been the actor who loves to perform "different" roles and has made different his norm. He may not be the best native American ever on screen, but he still pulls off the role believably enough. He is also, of course, entertaining as we all know Depp to be. Armie Hammer does fine as John Reid, but it is arguably not a very hard role to play and does not require too much emotion. Helena Bonham Carter's character is not particularly needed in the film, but she is always a treat on screen. Ruth Wilson is another who's character as Reid's sister in-law/ romantic interest is not particularly needed and not a particularly exciting character on screen.

The Lone Ranger perhaps doesn't need to be accused of being as big a disaster as it is being made out to be, but it is not a Disney classic. Just a splash of entertainment for the here and now.

5/10



You may have also seen Johnny Depp in......
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides as Captain Jack Sparrow
Alice In Wonderland as The Mad Hatter

You may have also seen Armie Hammer in.....
The Social Network as Cameron Winklevoss/ Tyler Winklevoss

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Year: 2011

Director: Rob Marshall

Cast: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane

In My Own Words

                When I first heard about the fourth instalment for “Pirates of the Caribbean”, I was completely sceptical. I had every reason to be. When the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” was released back in 2003, it was in my top 5 films for years. After the second and third film, I kind of lost interest. I think I was getting annoyed that the makers were milking the concept for all it was worth and using everything that was great about the first movie over and over again. I loved the freshness of the first one and the fact that there had never been a pirate film quite like that one before. There was romance, adventure, surprises and some good laughs in there. Of course, the second one and third one just doubled everything about the first. They were so over the top that it made it all seem so corny and silly.

                I can see why Disney would want to get the most out of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” phenomenon though. How good is the character of Captain Jack Sparrow? He is a character like none other and always a joy to watch. Disneyland even redid their “Pirates of the Caribbean” ride to include Sparrow after the huge success of the film, which was based on the ride to begin with. Depp deserved his Academy Award nomination for being the true spirit behind this character that will never be forgotten. There aren’t many characters these days which aren’t superheros that people can see not being forgotten in a hurry, so that makes Sparrow pretty special.

                And whether the fourth film is good or not, does it really matter in the eyes of Disney? Of course not! “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” had a $250 million production budget, and since it’s opening on Thursday, it has made $346 million worldwide. According to Box Office Mojo, this film had the highest earnings in its opening weekend in the United States ever. Why stop?

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

“Pirates of the Caribbean” may not have worn out its welcome just yet. Eight years after the first instalment was released, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” is the fourth on screen adventure of the beloved Captain Jack Sparrow. “On Stranger Tides” is much like the previous films in many ways, but the good thing is that it has learnt from the biggest mistakes made in the second and third films and has made amends for them in this film.

Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) returns and this time he is in pursuit of the Fountain of Youth. He once again escapes the gallows and is again running from the authorities and the newly reformed Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) who are also after the Fountain of Youth. He runs into his old flame, Angelica (Penelope Cruz) who tricks him into coming along with her and her father, Blackbeard (Ian McShane) on the same quest. It is a race to see who gets there first, and who knows how to get there. Also, who can survive the journey.

“On Stranger Tides” is much like the last two “Pirates of the Caribbean” where there is so much going on at once. There are the two main stories of Barbossa’s journey and Blackbeard’s journey, as well as the romance between Philip (Sam Clafin) and mermaid, Syrena (Astrid Berges-Frisbey). However much there may be going on, it is still not quite as busy as the second and third film proving that the film makers have learnt from their mistakes. Because there is so much going on, the scriptwriting seems a bit all over the place. Many of the characters, besides Sparrow, Blackbeard and Barbossa are not very verbally gifted. There are still some good laughs to be had throughout the film, but no real surprises or suspense.

There are some really thrilling and impressive moments in the film. The scenery and landscape used for various scenes in beautiful and the editing and cinematography is very well done. However, there are some boring and drawn out scenes in the film which wind the film down and make it less enjoyable. There is, of course, the farfetched nature of many of the activities undertaken in the film, such as Sparrow catapulting himself from the top of one palm tree to another which resembles something out of a video game. However, “Pirates of the Caribbean” is supposed to be a fantasy so it can be forgiven. Just don’t try this at home kids.

Once again, Johnny Depp is the star of the show. Even though we are now up to the fourth film in the series, Jack Sparrow is still as funny as ever and he in no way has faltered since his first appearance in “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl”. Geoffrey Rush does well once again as Barbossa and Ian McShane gives a solid performance as Blackbeard. Penelope Cruz doesn’t seem completely comfortable in this film and although she fits the part of the female pirate, she struggles with her relationships in the film. There is no real father daughter relationship between her and McShane and there is really no romantic tension or chemistry between her and Depp.

At the beginning of the film, you do start to feel as though you are missing Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley as Will and Elizabeth and wish they would return. Though Sam Clafin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey do pick up the romantic roles in this film well. Sam Clafin’s character of Philip is really a valuable addition to the series and has a great amount of character to him. Although Berges-Frisbey does not say much, she still makes quite an impression on the screen. Not just with her beauty, but also her innocence and fragility.

It is now a fact that there will not be another “Pirates of the Caribbean” quite like the first film, but this film is an improvement on the last two films in the series. It is still entertaining and enjoyable for the most part, but it’s busyness and drawn out scenes of nothingness let it down.

5.5/10

The Tourist

The Tourist
Year: 2010
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Cast: Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Paul Bettany, Timothy Dalton

In My Own Words The combination of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie is a film makers dream. Two of the biggest movie stars on the planet and two of my personal favourite actors. Johnny Depp is just likable in every role he has been in the past few years. Even in "The Libertine" where one of his first lines is "You are not going to like me". He failed at that because I still found him likable. He's not afraid to take risks, I think he is more afraid of taking on a role people might consider "normal". He has been nominated for 3 Oscars, but has yet to take home one. I would love to see him win one, but what will it take? He's been nominated for"Pirates Of The Carribean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl", "Finding Neverland" and "Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street". All amazing roles completely out of the ordinary yet no golden statue. What does he have to do?!

Then there is Angelina. The actress who has show-stopping beauty, but is sometimes more popular for what she does off screen than on screen. Her past romances, kissing siblings and being known as a "home wrecker" in the tabloids overshadow how truly amazing she is an an actress. She has been nominated for two Academy Awards and took home the big one in 1999 for "Girl, Interrupted". I think she is brilliant, regardless of what she does in her private life. After all, what is true about her so-called private life that we read in the celebrity gossip magazines?

I've already established that Depp and Jolie are amazing actors, but do they work together? These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Everything about "The Tourist" points towards a winning combination. It stars Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie who are two of the biggest movie stars in the world at the moment, has an Oscar winning director in Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and it's set in a beautiful city like Venice. It seems like nothing could go wrong, or could it? "The Tourist" was always going to do well at the box office no matter what happenned in the film. It is one of those films which some people are going to love and others are going to find ridiculous. "The Tourist" is an action thriller which borders on comedy. Unfortunately, the comedy aspect makes it hard to take the film seriously when you feel like you should be taking it seriously. Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp) is a maths teacher minding his own business on a train trip to Venice when a beautiful, mysterious English woman, Elise (Angelina Jolie) sits next to him. Little does he know, he is part of a plan of Elise's elusive love, Alexander Pearce to detour the authorities and make them think that Frank is actually him.

Set against the amazing backdrop of Venice, "The Tourist" seems to be a very confused film. It is not quite sure what it is. It could have been a serious film and it seems like that is what the film makers would have wanted, but with Johnny Depp involved it doesn't come across that way. Not to say that Johnny Depp can't do serious roles because he definately can, but his character of Frank is quite comedic. On the other hand, it is not as funny as it should be to qualify as a comedy. This confusion makes the film seem a bit messy, although it does play out perfectly and runs smoothly on the screen. Visually it is an amazing film to watch. Henckel von Donnersmarck has pieced the film together beautifully and the cinematography, editing and visuals are amazing. Scriptwise, it is a good story and completely unpredictable. Everytime you think you know what is going on, something will happen to change your thoughts. It is one of those films you will walk away from and the more you think about it, the more everything will start to make sense. However, it is the scrip that provides the comedy moments which creates the confusion of the film.

Both Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie are stars, there is no doubt about that. Johnny Depp is able to show so much emotion in just his facial expressions and in his eyes. He is able to make the audience feel great pity for him at the beginning of the film. The character of Frank feels much like the Inchabod Crane who Depp played in "Sleepy Hollow". Jolie shines on the screen, the camera just adores her. Depp and Jolie visually look good on the screen together, but there isn't a great deal of chemistry between the two. Maybe they were afraid of creating too much chemistry between the two in case that started creating rumours.

If you go into "The Tourist" thinking you will see a drama, you will be disappointed. If you think it is going to be a comedy, you will also be disappointed. If you think it is a psychological action film, you may not be so disappointed. If you think it is just going to be just a good piece of entertainment and something which is visually beautiful to watch, you will enjoy the film. Visually it is amazing and beautifully directed with beautiful people, but it is just confused about what it is and what it is trying achieve.
6/10

Alice In Wonderland

Alice In Wonderland
Year: 2010
Director: Tim Burton
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway

In My Own Words
“Alice In Wonderland” marked a momentous occasion for me, my first experience of 3D in my local cinema. I have experienced 3D before, but only in theme parks. It seemed like such a special concept at places like Warner Bros Movie World, Universal Studios and Disneyland, I guess that’s why 4D is becoming the rage there now. I didn’t find my 3D experience quite as exciting as I thought I would. It didn’t feel like it enhanced the film at all and it didn’t feel like it was quite the excitement it has been hyped up to be. I’m on the fence as to whether 3D is really worth the extra $5 we paid for it. I thought that is I was going to go to my first 3D film that Tim Burton’s “Alice In Wonderland” would be a good one to go with. Maybe I should have started with “Avatar”. Don’t get me wrong, there were some scenes where I thought the 3D made the visuals amazing...actually there was only one scene that stood out like that too me and that was where Alice was falling down the rabbit hole. I think I will be reserving 3D for the action films.

As for the movie, I really enjoyed this film. From beginning to finish, it is very Tim Burton though. Burton is one of those directors that you can walk into a cinema not knowing who the director is and recognise his styling trademarks not far into the film. The one thing I will say about “Alice In Wonderland” is in order to enjoy, take it for what it is. It is a family sequel to the Lewis Carroll tale which is a showcase of fantasy visual effects. Don’t expect a film that will shake you emotionally, Carroll’s fantasy was never supposed to be that.

These are my words and here is my review.

Review
Tim Burton’s highly anticipated film “Alice In Wonderland” is, just like the original fantasy by Lewis Carroll, loads of fun and extremely enjoyable. Not just for children, unlike its Disney animation relative, the film shows Wonderland through a grown-up’s perspective as well as having aspects of it that children will also enjoy.Alice (Mia Wasiknowska) returns down the rabbit hole 15 years after her first journey to Wonderland to find that the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has taken over and is out to get Alice, as she is the only one who can strip her of her rule. Alice is helped along the way by her friends which she made in Wonderland when she was young such as the White Rabbit, the Cheshire Cat, Tweedledee and Tweedledum and the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway).

The film is just beautiful to watch and a lot of fun. The visuals and script mix well together to create a film which is a pleasure to sit back and enjoy rather than worry about the ending. Yes, it is predictable, but “Alice In Wonderland” was always meant to be a family film and not to be too stressful. It is also important to remember just how strange the original novel and film is, and then the film seems fitting as it just carries on the tradition. The visual effects which Tim Burton employs are beautiful and completely appropriate. The costumes, especially the ones made for Alice, are beautiful and stunning. On the whole, the film is extremely Burton-esque. In the first 60 seconds, it is completely obvious that you are in a Burton film. The score, by Danny Elfman, is reminiscent of his past films and the visuals ring of “Charlie And The Chocolate Factory”. However, this does not take away from any of the beauty and the magnificence of the production. Although the story is quite original, the big criticism here is that it extracts from so many other stories. There are elements of the story which are so much like other stories. For example, there are traces of “The Chronicles Of Narnia”, “The Lord Of The Rings”, “Robin Hood”, “Where The Wild Things Are” and “Peter Pan” and its film sequel “Hook” in it all over the place. It almost feels like déjà vu throughout parts of the film.

Another criticism here is that there are many references to the Disney animation version of “Alice In Wonderland”. These are references that people who have seen the 1951 animation version will not get at all, but those who have seen it will recognise immediately, such as “Twinkle twinkle little bat, how I wonder where you’re at”. These references and this fact are not major criticisms though, as those who haven’t seen the animation, will still understand the film regardless.

Mia Wasikowska is the perfect Alice. She has the right amount of innocence and is picture perfect for the role. Although she does not strain herself at all in the role, she is extremely likable and brings to the role everything that one should. The Mad Hatter is definitely not Johnny Depp’s best role, but he is still good. It does feel as though he is channelling his inner “Drop Dead Fred” in this role through the visuals and as the young Alice’s mentor. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as the Red Queen and her character stays true to the original Queen in the Lewis Carroll novel and in the first film. “Alice In Wonderland” feels like a very different film for Anne Hathaway. Although she has done fantasy films before, this is the first time she has not played the role of the young girl, and instead takes on the role of a superior, but quirky queen. The March Hare is also a great character to watch, as he is hilarious and definitely mad.

The most important thing when watching “Alice In Wonderland” is to purely enjoy it for what it is. It relies greatly on the visuals and not on an emotional journey or anything remotely thought provoking. It is purely fun and just beautiful to watch.
8/10

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Panassus

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Panassus
Year: 2009
Director: Terry Gilliam
Cast: Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Tom Waits, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell

In My Own Words
Another movie I had the pleasure of seeing for free as I also won tickets to this! I did not know much about this movie when I walked into the cinema. All I really knew about it was that it was a fantasy and that it was Heath Ledger’s last movie. This fact in itself will draw crowds to see it. The movie itself, I found interesting. It was one of those movies that I go home and look up information about, particularly about how the film managed to be finished without one of the main characters. From doing this, it was easy to see how the films opening was a great deal delayed. The script had to be rewritten and Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell had to be brought in. I won’t go into the reasons why these actors were brought in, as it would definitely contain spoilers for those who plan to see the movie. However, it is admirable that this movie was finally released, as many movies become unfinished projects when one of the leads dies in the middle of filming. For example, 1962 movie “Something’s Got To Give” remains unfinished due to the death of Marilyn Monroe.

I’m glad I saw this movie, as it is not often a movie comes out like “The Imaginarium Of Doctor Panassus”. It was something different and although not a movie I would go out and buy on DVD, was a pleasant watch. However, it is slightly odd, or very odd, depending on what you are into.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“The Imaginarium Of Doctor Panassus” is a clever, visually stunning fantasy movie, that some will adore, but it will also seem a little too far fetched for others. If you enjoy films that combine the modern world with fantasy without crossing over into the sci-fi genre, this movie may well be for you. While fantasy fans will flock to see this film, so will many others just to watch Heath Ledger in his last performance on the big screen. “The Imaginarium Of Doctor Panassus” is all of these things... a Heath Ledger tribute, stunningly beautiful and completely and utterly bizarre.

Thousand year old story-teller and imagination guider Doctor Panassus (Christopher Plummer) is the leader of a travelling sideshow in modern times, which is extremely unsuccessful. As a result of a wager he made with the devil, Mr Nick( Tom Waits), sixteen years ago, he is in danger of losing his beautiful daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole). A new wager is set up to see who gets to keep Valentina, both Mr Nick and Doctor Panassus vie to be the first to collect five souls in the Imaginarium. With the appearance of a mysterious stranger, Tony (Heath Ledger) the competition turns out to be more than what everyone involved has bargained for. “The Imaginarium Of Doctor Panassus” is very slow to begin with, but speeds up in the second half to the point that it is almost going too fast. The story gains momentum and becomes intriguing in the second half, thanks to the entrance of the Imaginarium in the film. The visuals created for the Imaginarium are amazing, and are likened to a cross between the visuals in “Lord Of The Rings” and “Corpse Bride’, beautiful yet dark. Even the stage for the Imaginarium is beautiful and vintage, as are the costumes used for Doctor Panassus and his troop.

The first image of Ledger in the movie is almost spooky, like seeing an image from beyond the grave. It is an extremely different role to the ones in which Ledger was known for, although it isn’t too far removed from the Joker in “The Dark Knight” in some sequences. It is a fitting farewell to the Australian actor, and a fun and pleasant last role for fans to remember him by. The role of Doctor Panassus, as played by Plummer, is supposed to be of a role in which people feel sorry for and connect with. However, he just comes across as a drunk who doesn’t show much feeling until the very end. Perhaps the best performance in the movie is by model turned actress Lily Cole. Her portrayal of the young and naïve Valentina show both the strong and weak sides of her character. Valentina is both a temptress and a child and Cole is perfect in the role. She shows how she has made the successful transition from model to actor and has a promising acting career ahead of her. Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell’s roles are more like cameos, there in place of Ledger. Their roles are, however, not clearly defined, and are more like talking points for the audience to decode and come to their own conclusion about what they mean after the movie.

As mentioned, it is a great story and very clever. The writers did a great job of reassembling the script after the shock of having one of the major stars die. One would have to imagine what their Imaginarium would be like. However, much of the film is not thoroughly explained and can be confusing. It is not a realistic movie at all, which is inevitable of it being a fantasy film, but it can come across as extremely bizarre. This degree of strangeness will be a reason why people both love and hate the film.

7/10