Showing posts with label geoffrey rush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geoffrey rush. Show all posts

Sunday, November 12, 2017

"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" (2003) Review





"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" (2003) Review

Fourteen years ago, "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" had burst upon the movie screens and to the surprise of many, became a major hit. Even more surprising, the movie ended up spawning a wildly successful movie franchise within another eight years and also a new cinematic icon for the 21st century – Captain Jack Sparrow. 

Judging from the forums and blogs on the Internet, it seems to me that "CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" is the most popular film in the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN franchise. In a way, I can understand. It lacked the darker aspects of the two sequels that followed. Directed by Gore Verbinski and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, "CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" is based upon the attraction at the Disney parks. In it, the pirates of the ship known as the Black Pearl, led by the vile Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), need to restore the missing piece of the ancient Aztec gold treasure of Cortes and sacrifice the blood of "Bootstrap" Bill Turner to save themselves from eternal punishment owing to a curse that fell upon them when they stole the gold. The buccaneers attack Port Royal and kidnap Miss Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) who has the missing piece of gold. In order to rescue Miss Elizabeth Swann, William Turner (Orlando Bloom) enlists the help of the fabled Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) who devises an ingenious plan to retrieve the Black Pearl from his mutinous former first mate, Captain Barbossa, and help William Turner save the love of his life

Screenwriters Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio created a frolicking tale filled with swashbuckler action, an interesting supernatural story that involved cursed treasure and undead pirates, and sharp humor that almost bordered on the cock-eyed. Most of this humor came from the leading man himself, the excruciatingly talented Johnny Depp. His portrayal of the morally ambiguous and androgynous Captain Jack Sparrow took a great deal of moviegoers and critics by surprise. He certainly took me by surprise. No other actor in Hollywood or anywhere else has ever portrayed a pirate in this manner. Not surprisingly, Depp received an Academy Award nomination and a Screen Actors Guild award for his performance. 

It seemed a shame that Geoffrey Rush had failed to earn any acting nominations for his performance as the menacing Captain Barbossa. Come to think of it, his performance was more than menacing. Like Depp, he gave a performance filled with a great deal of off-the-wall humor and sharp dialogue. I also enjoyed Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley’s performances as the star-crossed young lovers, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann. Ironically, both actors seemed to have better chemistry with either Depp, Rush or both than with each other. Until the final battle. And I found that odd, considering that their screen chemistry seemed a lot stronger and more convincing in the final action scene inside the large cavern on Isla de Muerta and in the second and third films. I wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that Will and Elizabeth spent most of the movie suppressing their feelings for one another. 

As for the rest of the cast that made up the movie, they were superb. Jack Davenport gave a commanding, yet sardonic performance as Will’s romantic rival – Commodore James Norrington of the Royal Navy. Mind you, Davenport really grew into the role in "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST", but he did a good job in this film. And what would a PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN be without Kevin R. Nally as Josiah Gibbs, Lee Arnberg as Pintel and MacKenzie Crook as Rigetti? I could list all of the supporting characters that made this movie memorable, but it would take forever. I will simply state that Verbinski was very lucky to find himself with an excellent cast.

I had noted earlier "CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" is not as dark as the second and third films. I wonder if this is the reason why many fans prefer it over the other movies. If I have to be honest, I do not share the same sentiments. Do not get me wrong. I love this movie. But it is not my favorite PIRATES movie. That honor goes to the second film - "DEAD MAN'S CHEST". As much as I love "CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL", there were times I wish it had been a little more ambiguous. With the exception of the Jack Sparrow character, the other characters are clearly either the good guys or the bad guys. There seemed to be little room for moral ambiguity.

There was another aspect of "CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" that I had noticed – even when I first saw the film. For a movie set in the Caribbean, I really did not see much of it. Yes, there were scenes set aboard ships. But aside from a sequence featuring Jack Sparrow’s arrival at Port Royal, his first meeting of Elizabeth and Norrington and the island where Barbossa stranded Jack and Elizabeth; the movie never really captured the aura of the Caribbean – at least for me. And I had noticed something else. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski used a lot of close ups in his shots. I remembered that those close ups made me feel slightly dizzy and claustrophic when I first saw the movie. 

Despite certain elements of the film that did not appeal to me – Wolski’s photography and the less ambiguous tone of most of the characters – I still love "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL". I love the story, Klaus Badelt’s score, Gore Verbinski’s direction, and the characters. Especially Johnny Depp’s performance. Hopefully, this movie and the two that followed will one day be viewed as film classics. They are already classics in my eyes.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" (2003) Photo Gallery



Here is a gallery of photos from the 2003 movie, "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL". Directed by Gore Verbinski, the movie starred Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley: 



"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL" (2003) Photo Gallery
















17832-900x500
























POTC_CotBP_0842


















































POTC_CotBP_1780

















Saturday, February 9, 2013

"ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" (2007) Review



"ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" (2007) Review

Nine years after the release of 1998's "ELIZABETH", director Shekhar Kapur returned to direct a sequel called, "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE". Like the 1998 movie, it stars Cate Blanchett as England's "Virgin Queen" and Geoffrey Rush as the sovereign's most trusted spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham. The movie covers a period during Elizabeth I's reign in which she had faced the double threat of Philip II of Spain (Jordi MollĂ ) and Mary, Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton). The movie also features a romantic triangle for Elizabeth that features Clive Owen as Walter Raleigh, famous poet and explorer (and the Queen's object of desire) and Abbie Cornish as one of Elizabeth's ladies-in-waitng and Raleigh's future wife, Bess Throckmorton.

Despite having the same director and star as the previous film, "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" seems like a different kettle of fish from its predecessor. Michael Hirst and new writer, William Nicholson's screenplay seem more somber and less violent than the 1998 film. The most graphic violence shown in the movie is actually heard as Mary Stuart's neck is severed by a sword (or axe). And its sensuality almost seem subdued in compared to the earlier film. The most titillating scene seemed to be Cate Blanchett's backside after she disrobes in one scene.

The movie covers a period in Elizabethan history that has been featured many times in the past - namely Elizabeth Tudor's decision to execute Mary Stuart for plotting treason. It also covers the consequences of this act - namely Spain's decision to send an armada to England. Although I found this mildly interesting, I wish that one day in the future, some filmaker would focus upon a period in Elizabeth's reign that did not cover her early years as queen, Mary Stuart's death or the Spanish Armada. Unfortunately, these incidents seem to define her reign in history. Perhaps that is why I found the story's main conflict anti-climatic. At least the royal triangle between Elizabeth, Raleigh and Throckmorton managed to provide some spark in the story . . . even if this actually played out in the early 1590s, instead of the 1580s as shown in the film.

The performances are basically first-rate - especially by Rush, Owen and Cornish. Although I must confess that I found Owen's presence in the movie to be almost irrevelant. Aside from participating in the defense of England against Spain, he had no serious role in the movie's main story - namely Elizabeth's conflict with Mary and Philip.

I really do not know what to make of Jordi MollĂ 's portrayal of Philip II. I guess I found it rather odd. I think he had tried to portray the Spanish sovereign as someone more eccentric than he actually was. And quite frankly, screenwriters Hirst and Nicholson did not serve him well by dumping some rather pedantic dialogue upon him that seemed focused around insulting Elizabeth's character. I do not know what he had called English queen more - 'whore''bastard' or simply 'darkness'. Quite frankly, he had made a much better villain in "BAD BOYS II".

As for Blanchett, I really enjoyed her performance in the movie's first half. She seemed more self-assured, mature and perhaps manipulative than she was in the 1998 movie. Yet, once when affairs of both the state and the heart began to sour for her, she engaged in more over-the-top mannerisms than Bette Davis did during her entire 17 years at Warner Brothers. Before one starts thinking that I was more impressed by Blanchett's performance in "ELIZABETH", let me assure you that I was not. If anything, her twitchiness in the movie's second half only reminded me of the same mannerisms that I almost found annoying in the first movie. Yet . . . she still managed to turn in an excellent performance.

Like its 1998 predecessor, "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" is not perfect. It lacks the previous movie's colorful panache, despite the lavish costumes and sets. In fact, those very traits nearly threaten to overwhelm both the story and its characters. Thankfully, Kapur manages to prevent this from actually happening. And although it is historically incorrect, at least it is not marred by an unforgivable revision of history as was the case with the Elizabeth/Dudley storyline in the first film. Despite its imperfections, I suggest you go see "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE". Especially if you enjoy lavish costumes in a historical setting.

Monday, December 3, 2012

"ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" (2007) Photo Gallery





Below is a gallery featuring photos from the new sequel to the 1998 film, "ELIZABETH" called "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE":


"ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" (2007) Photo Gallery