Catching Up...

Saw a bunch of movies in the last week or so...

Modern Romance (**)

I have seen Albert Brooks in movies here and there but movies in which he writes and directs remain largely unfamiliar to me. I just saw Modern Romance, and I have to say it was a mixed bag for me, mostly because I am a huge fan of Woody Allen and he is more successful at making these kinds of movies than this movie was. Brooks portrays a neurotic and insecure boyfriend who essentially abuses his girlfriend with his psychotic behavior. The movie works well as a satire on the state of modern dating and hang-ups, but the character is totally unsympathetic because his behavior is so irredeemable. There is always an innocent, well-meaning streak to Allen's humor and quirky view on human relations. Whereas the antics of a Woody Allen and Larry David skate the line between believable and absurd, Brooks's character is a kind of monster. And worse yet, his girlfriend in the movie is such a pushover, you think of her as simply a fool-- and the reasons why she is so willing to subject herself to Brooks's self-absorbed behavior are never made clear. If you are looking for nuance in your examinations of relationships, rent Annie Hall instead.

Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (****)

My girlfriend insisted I see this movie, but I had resisted since it came out in the movie. It isn't because it looked bad (quite the opposite) or that I wasn't a fan of Charlie Kaufman's skewed viewpoint on the world. I loved Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. The real reason I looked at this movie with bitter contempt was due to the fact that I had concieved of the story idea prior to the movie! I was so annoyed that someone had beaten me to it. Not only was I annoyed that the movie had been made, it was so obviously a great movie. I was not wrong in that assumption. What is amazing is how the movie can be at once totally strange and alien in its world view and hit on familiar emotions that resonate. The feelings of bitter loneliness followed by the rise, atrophy, and fall of a relationship are so authentic that it really grounds some of the more unconventional elements of the movie. Jim Carrey was amazing in this movie only because, in light of his usual fare, he was able to remain so understated throughout. My only regret is that I didn't see it sooner.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Dead Man's Chest (*** and 1/2)

I loved the first one. It had a real sense of fun, but did its best to have a unique voice and visual style. Even the usually unbearable Orlando Bloom can find a place in a movie such different and colorful characters. As sequels go, this movie was excellent. Nothing about the movie ever felt forced, as if the execs mandated a sequel and they had to really work the script hard to get all the characters in the same place again. It seemed to grow organically from the original.

This movie, however, is a little more complicated. Like the Matrix sequels, this one adds on more characters and a more byzantine plot. But unlike that failed trilogy, this movie manages to juggle all the different characters and their motivations rather well. It is a hard plot to describe since there are so many characters intertwined into the story for their own motivations. Put simply as possible, Jack Sparrow made a deal with Davey Jones to save the Black Pearl and to captain it for thirteen years. Those thirteen years are up and has to find a chest that holds the heart of Davey Jones to use as a bargaining chip to extend his life. However, other people want it for other reasons. Will, for instance, wants to destroy the heart to free his father from Davey Jones's servitude and Norrington, the villain of the last movie, wants it to regain the prestige and station in life he had lost following his humilation.

The first movie had a streak of black humor running through it, but this movie takes it to a new level. I noticed that this for a Disney movie, it has a huge body count. And when people do die, it is often as a result of a punchline. Maybe it's just me, but it seems strange that this is a Disney picture. Stranger still when you remember the source material they are working with is a clunky theme park ride. It really makes you appreciate the Gore Verbinski's ability to make something out of nothing. There isn't really much to say in terms of why you would like this movie. If you have seen the first one, you will like this because it is more of the same, but more of it. And by same I don't mean it gets repetitive; I mean that sense of fun and adventure that most movies are totally devoid of is never in short supply. There is a real sense that anything can happen in this movie; and that idea that in a movie anything is possible and around every corner there is something interesting or bizarre is a quality really missing in movies today. You might get it a little with the Harry Potter movies, as well, but this makes you remember what made you excited to go to the movies when you were a kid.

The movie could have really fallen apart from too many moving parts. However, it holds together rather nicely. The only times it ever felt like it was getting a little off the rails was probably when Jack Sparrow and his crew were held captive by a tribe of cannibals. That sequence seemed unimportant to the plot and entirely too much time was spent on the set-up and the execution on something of no importance to the plot. It could have been whittled down in the editing room. Also, some of the action sequences were so long and elaborate you almost become numb to them at points.

Great movie.