Mouse Extra

Jim Hill, within a book review he posted this morning, revealed some interesting information on way may be the plot in the potential fourth installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean film.  And it is very intriguing…

…(Pirates 4) will reportedly be built around Jack Sparrow & Barbossa. With the two captains initially reconnecting in the just-founded city of New Orleans before they then join forces and head off to Florida in search of the Fountain of Youth.

Man, let’s hope he is right about this one.  That sounds like a fantastic film.  In my opinion, Barbossa and Sparrow are what made the Curse of the Black Pearl such a terrific film.  Their contrasting, yet similarly ruthless and witty styles were what injected so much fun into the first movie.  Dead Man’s Chest was missing this element, and that’s why it didn’t play as well to me.  The simple fun of swashbuckling buccaneers was replaced with a convoluted story. 

Also, instead of focusing on Barbossa, we spent more time with Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann.   The result was the viewer having to endure more Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom, whose characters were not nearly as dynamic as the Captains.  Also, and this is meant with no disrespect to either actor, but both of whom have no where near the ability to entertain on screen like Geoffrey Rush.  Either as a result of acting or writing, Swann and Turner are boring characters, especially Turner.   And sitting through the forced love scenes and poorly delivered jokes is not the highlight of the Pirates films.

While the third installment Pirates of the Caribbean film franchise, At World’s End, rakes in the dollars, critics are predictably mixed.  Considering how “mixed” I was about Dead Man’s Chest, some of these more negative reviews have severely dampened my excitement to see it.

Let’s start with this line by Dana Stevens in Slate…

Adrift in the windless seas of its 168-minute running time, the viewer passes through confusion and boredom into a state of Buddhist passivity.

The Newark Star-Ledger (my local paper) gave it one and a half stars.  Critic Lisa Rose had this to say…

“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” creates the sense of being in a theme park, though it’s not the experience you might be expecting. Sitting through the movie isn’t like being on a thrill ride. It’s more like waiting for one.

Hours pass with little excitement. Costumed characters vamp and caper in a hopeless effort to quell the tedium.

USA Today’s Claudia Puig said…

Just before the film’s end, a drunken pillager growls out: “Take what you can. Give nothing back.” Mindful of a predecessor that raked in more than $1 billion worldwide, that greedy directive might have been the mantra of the studio execs who conceived of this sorry spectacle.

But they are not all bad.  Some are slightly better.  Here’s Stephen Hunter from the Washington Post…

Funner, biggerer, brighterer, bolderer, “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” is not only okay, it may even be close to good. A lavish spectacle illuminated by Johnny Depp’s swishing pirate captain, the movie has its dull moments, but not many.

So why am I writing about all the not-so-glowing reviews on Pirates?  Truth be told, I am very excited about seeing this film, and maybe this is my way of calming my own expectations.  I was somewhat disappointed with Dead Man’s Chest.  The Curse of the Black Pearl was one of my all-time favorite films and the second film didn’t hold the type re-watch-ability the first one had.  I chalked up my lack of excitement over Dead Man’s Chest to the film being only one part of a greater idea and At World’s End would bring it all together.  If it doesn’t, I’ll really be let down.

It seems as though many Hollywood prognosticators are predicating an explosion in 3-D film releases in the not-too-distant future, after Disney’s “Meet the Robinsons” was released in hundreds of theaters on this format.  According to the New York Daily News, this explosion may include some great former blockbusters.

By the end of the decade, Darth Vader could be rattling sabers with his enemies above the heads of moviegoers, and Buzz Lightyear could be flying off the screen on his way to infinity and beyond.

A growing number of blockbuster, live-action films and animated movies are expected to be offered in in-your-face 3-D in the next few years, as thousands of theaters are outfitted with the special projectors and screens needed to show the films.

Much of this buzz can be attributed to the success “Meet the Robinsons” has experienced in its 3-D release.  It is amazing what this technology can do for audience’s reaction.  Nearly everyone I met with a positive view on the film saw the 3-D version, when nearly everyone I’ve talked to who didn’t see it in 3-D though it was terrible, including myself. 

Disney has invested a lot in the future of 3-D films, and this latest effort certainly points to good things.  Considering how glowing the reviews of the 3-D version of “Meet the Robinsons” have been, the technology must be incredible, because the story certainly was anything but.  But the thought of seeing the “Empire Strikes Back” in digital 3-D is certainly an exciting one, and I am sure that Disney sees the potential to reissue many of its popular films in this format.

Did you ever have one of those days when you felt like you wasted your time?  Have you ever been aggravated because you waited in a 2 hour line, say at the Motor Vehicles office or maybe at the dentist?  It’s the feeling that you could have been doing anything, literally anything else but this and your time would have been better spent.  That’s the way I felt when I left the movie theater after watching Disney’s new animated feature “Meet the Robinsons”.

I went to see the film in what I believe was a good frame of mind.  Being a Disney production, I was excited to see it.  But the reviews I reported on yesterday were very mixed, so I was ready for anything.  What I was not ready for was an absolute disastrously difficult 90-plus minutes of what can only be described as cinematic torture.

The story is certainly not a bad one.  An orphan boy-genius inventor goes to the future and discovers what his life will become, while a villain with a personal grudge tries to change the hero’s life by altering history.  It’s a simple story that has promise, but it buckles under the weight of maddening movie ineptness.   I can’t count how many times during the film I turned to my wife and asked her if the scene we just watched was supposed to be funny.  She didn’t know, and neither did the theater fill of children who never laughed once during the whole movie.  Vast sections of twenties minutes or more would go by without any redeeming entertainment or story-telling value.  It was just odd, sometimes trippy, but always   confusing or mediocre at best.  Even the animation came nowhere near the quality we are used to from Pixar productions.  Hopefully, Disney will learn from this and let John Lasseter’s crew handle this end of the animation business from now on.

The film was preceded by the 1938 short “Boat Builders” starring Mickey, Donald and Goofy, which was a treat to see on the big screen.  There were more laughs, and more happy children that came out of the seven minutes of a nearly 70 year old short than in the entire 90-plus minutes of “Meet the Robinsons”.  That probably explains why the decision was made to put it there to begin with.  I can only imagine when Disney Studio executives saw the finished product, this was the best they can think of to make the experience at least tolerable.

“Meet the Robinsons” ends with a poignant quote from Walt Disney  that the filmmakers were undoubtedly hoping would add to the story in some way.  Instead, it makes us wonder if Mr. Disney wouldn’t have pulled the plug on this film long before I wasted my money.  It is also hard not to wonder how John Lasseter convinced himself this feature was good enough to represent Disney animation.