Pirates of the Carribean II: The Quickening

Pirates of the Carribean really isn’t a very good movie. It has almost none of the charm of the first movie. The only aspect of the first movie that carries over with any force are the new set of ghoulish seaman, this time half men half sea creature vice undead. Unfortunately, Davey Jones crew is the center piece of the movie vice a nice addition. What this movie is lacking is all of the charisma and chemistry from the first movie. Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow is considerably less charming and stands out only for his repetitive affectations. Kiera Knightly’s character is far less likeable given her dual attraction between Sparrow and Turner. Jack Sparrow comes off so obtuse that he doesn’t seem a legitimate object of affection, and thus Kiera Knightly comes off as simply a false lover, not a woman torn by passion. Orlando Bloom’s, driven in theory by passion and honor, seems to be merely reading his lines like everyone else and musters little sympathy. The least convincing moment in the movie is the ending, in which the survivors lustily agree to do whatever it takes to go save Jack Sparrow, whom I didn’t really care was dead.

In place of character development and dialogue, there are several truly stupid actions scenes. When three “master swordsmen” fight for 15 minutes, I expect someone to get hurt. This movie felt like watching an episode of the A Team, compete with a core of characters who miraculously survive disaster after disaster while everyone else around them perishes. There was no danger and therefore no real excitement. As I sat and watched I could almost here the producer conversing over the script: “we have to spice up this scene a little. What if we had a big water wheel rolling down the hill as the three crawl around it and fight.”

Jerry Bruckheimer has imported all the worst elements of TV into this cinematic defecate. I can only hope that at least one of the core characters is killed or at least wounded in the sequel part duex. I was given to believe that this was an action movie of a sort, but it brings all the danger of an MacGyver episode. Note to Bruckheimer: it would be nice to have an ending. If there were any justice in the world, I would have been able to save my movie ticket and used it to see the rest of the movie, whenever it comes out. I think instead I will just download a bootleg.

Note to Fenian Fox: I made a treasure chest off of this dretch and I will do it again off the sequel sequel. Argg.

-Jerry Bruckheimer

Syriana

It was hard to tell what the point of this movie was, other than a oblique insinuation that Big Oil is evil. I had great doubts about the movie based on its popularity at the Academy Awards.

One of the nexus scenes, in which out of favor CIA agent "Bob" tries to interrupt the assassination on the forign minister of a Middle Eastern country, fundamentally makes no sense due to several nagging unanswered questions, foremost: how did he know that the assassination was scheduled, how did he find the minister's entourage at exactly the right time by driving around in the desert? Presumably, if he just wanted to warn the minister of a general threat, he could have sone so much more subtley.

Aside from the plot flaws, I want to consider the implications of this movie, or more specifically, what this movie implies. My friends often chastise me for taking movies too seriously. On the contrary, I don't take them too seriously, rather I in fact have several good reasons not to take them seriously.

The Academy and magazines like Time take the movie seriously, and I think that should be challenged. To whit, per the movie box, Richard Corliss from Time describes the movie as an "engrossing, insider's tour of the world's hottest spots, grandest schemes and most dangerous men." I question Richard Corliss' ability to know what constitutes an insider's tour because I doubt that he is an insider in the world's hottest spots.

Nevertheless, if we are to assume that Syriana is an insider's tour, what do we learn about what is happening on "the inside"?

1. The CIA conducts assassinations of world leaders.
2. The CIA has no loyalty to its operatives and will disgrace them when convenient.
3. The CIA takes its marching orders from Big Oil interests.
4. The CIA has a cooperative relationship with Hezbollah.
5. The biggest impediment to oil rich countries using their riches to improve the living conditions and political freedoms of their people is the President fo the United States' pressure to perserve jobs in Texas. Islamic religious leaders who demand a theocratic state based on socially restrictive interpretations of Islam are not shown to be a limitation. Historic interracial violence is also not shown to be a factor. Just American greed.