REVIEW 12: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (3D)

Release date in India:	May 20, 2011
Director:	Rob Marshall
Cast:	Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush, Ian McShane, Guest appearances by Keith Richards + a legendary actress who shall not be named + a young model-turned-actress who looks uncannily like another rising Hollywood star

It’s important that I start off by telling you that I’m not a Pirates of the Caribbean kinda gal at all. Sure I found the first instalment of the series entertaining, but that’s primarily because director Gore Verbinski’s POTC: The Curse of the Black Pearl had novelty value. Then came Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End – both from Verbinski – through which I was either suppressing yawns or nausea as I watched Johnny Depp’s by-now-increasingly-tedious quirks as Captain Jack Sparrow, Davy Jones’ ugh-able beard, that hideous Kraken with its revolting tentacles and suction devices, and other ewww-worthy sights.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides comes to us with a new director, inspiration from the novel On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers, a shift to 3D and the entry of God’s gift to humankind, Penelope Cruz. It cuts out the repelling visuals, delivers to us the prettiest sea-creatures I’ve seen on the big screen in a long time and ends up being a really fun experience!

The story is intricate, but this time thankfully not so crowded as to be confusing. England’s King George II wants Jack Sparrow to join an expedition to find a Fountain of Youth, with pirate-turned-privateer Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Jack learns from Barbossa that his former ship the Black Pearl was destroyed in a battle with the legendary pirate Blackbeard. Jack escapes the King’s men but bumps into his fiery old flame Angelica (Cruz) who drugs him and drags him on board Blackbeard’s ship where he’s forced to serve as navigator, again in a quest for the fountain. Blackbeard wants to drink from it to prevent his imminent death that has been foretold. To complicate matters further, the Spanish are headed for the fount too.

On the face of it, Rob Marshall is an unusual choice of director for this film. He is best known for his multiple-Oscar-winning musical Chicago. But clearly producer Jerry Bruckheimer knew something we don’t, because Marshall has added a much-needed softness to Pirates, pared it down, cleaned up the clutter and made it his own. The long action sequences are well choreographed, most especially the chase scene at the start and the arrival of an army of mermaids. Jack doesn’t hog screen space in this film, which gives us enough respite from his eccentricities to enjoy them while he’s around without getting overwhelmed or bored by too much of him. Cruz is the perfect choice to play a woman who is the only one for whom wacko Jack has felt any “stirrings”, though a fine actress like her deserved to be challenged a bit more. Ian McShane makes a nicely nasty Blackbeard, but my pick of the cast is Rush who seems to be having a rollicking time reprising his role as Barbossa who now has a peg for a leg that also doubles up as a keg. Oops … I promise I didn’t mean to make a rhyme there, it just happened.

Though not necessarily crackling throughout, the dialogue is drolly humorous at most times, the high point being an ever-so- brief exchange between Jack and his dad played by Rolling Stones’ Keith Richards. And after a long time, here’s a Hollywood film in which the 3D really makes a difference. While watching Tangled last year, I remember wanting to reach out and grab those lanterns when they were released from the castle. In Pirates 4, the third dimension is worth the weight of those burdensome glasses on your nose and the dimness that’s the bane of all 3D films. The jungles appear more ominous because of it, that monkey is an even stranger critter than when we saw him first, and oh those lovely mermaids … what do I say to you about those graceful silver creatures swooshing through the sea waters, their luminous faces beaming at vulnerable men, their fish scales wisely camouflaged in the deep?! Their appearance leads to a romance between an imprisoned mermaid called Syrena and a cleric who worries about Blackbeard’s soul (a moralistic stance that is thankfully not stretched so much as to take away from the film’s otherwise light, cheeky, self-deprecating tone). This unusual love story is poignant in contrast with the more sexually charged chemistry between Depp and Cruz.

Let me make myself very clear: Nothing that I’ve said in this review should be misconstrued as meaning that I would like to see another Pirates of the Caribbean film. On Stranger Tides would have been a nice swan song for this series. Sadly, enough clues have been left around in this film to indicate a follow-up. That’s a pity because however brilliant Johnny Depp may be, I can’t take another film in which he’s leaning on the crutches provided to him by the physical peculiarities and/or behavioral idiosyncrasies of the characters he’s playing. I realise that I have just blasphemed in the eyes of Depp devotees, but what I really really want is to see a series of 10 back-to-back releases in which Depp is just a regular working guy in a modern city, without heavy eye make-up or mincing steps or scissors for hands or a penchant for human meat pies.

Perhaps that’s asking for too much, so let me just say Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a complete entertainer. It’s not a work of genius, and it’s possible that one reason why I like it so much is that it has fixed all the problems I had with Parts 2 & 3. I’m not going to analyse my reaction too much. For a pleasant evening out I’d recommend Pirates 4 to you!

Rating (out of five): ***1/4

Release date in the US:	May 13, 2011
MPAA Rating (US):	PG-13 (For intense sequences of action/adventure violence, some frightening images, sensuality and innuendo.)
CBFC Rating (India):	U/A without cuts
Running time in India:	137 minutes
Running time in the US:	137 minutes
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides

REVIEW 5: THE KING’S SPEECH

Release date in India:	March 4, 2011
Director:	Tom Hooper
Cast:	Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter

You don’t need to be British to know the story of King Edward VIII of England. Imagine a monarch giving up his crown to marry the woman he loves! The story that’s told less often though is that of Edward’s younger brother George VI (father of today’s Queen Elizabeth II), the man who was never meant to be king.

The King’s Speech is about George, or rather Prince Albert as he was known before he ascended the throne. It’s a simple film about a man with a speech impediment who had an enormous public role unexpectedly thrust upon him by his elder sibling’s abdication. Albert’s sentences are punctuated by stutters and long silences. Every speech is an occasion for humiliation. To save him from repeated embarrassment, Albert’s wife Elizabeth arrives at the doorstep of speech therapist Lionel Logue, an Australian and a failed actor. What Lionel does for Albert, and the uncommon friendship that develops between the king and the commoner, are the focal points of The King’s Speech.

Director Tom Hooper tells the story of how Albert overcame his stammer with empathy and a sense of humour. The dialogue writing is sharp and very very British. “Waiting for me to commence a conversation, one can wait rather a long wait,” Albert tells Lionel at one of their earliest encounters. Clearly he knows how to laugh at himself despite his misery.

“Do you know any jokes?” Lionel asks Albert one day. The reply: “Timing isn’t my strong suit.”

While watching Hitler deliver a speech, Albert’s daughter asks: “Papa, what is he saying?” Papa responds: “I don’t know but he seems to be saying it rather well.”

“What are friends for?” says Lionel. Replies Albert: “I wouldn’t know.”

It’s a comment on the things you may not envy in royal life, and the things you should not do while bringing up a child. Albert was naturally left-handed but forced to switch to right-handedness. He stammers less around Lionel and his own wife, but is worse in the presence of his controlling father and confident brother. Though a ‘diagnosis’ is not chucked in our faces, enough hints are dropped to help us guess what brought on his stammer in the first place.

Some people may call this pop psychology. Frankly I don’t care. Because the end result is a sweet film that wrapped me up so gently in its emotions that I didn’t realise at what point I started rooting for the king myself. When Albert delivers his first radio address as King George, like his wife my fists too were clenched with tension on his behalf, and the tears rolled down my cheeks though Elizabeth kept hers in check.

This is not a royal saga filled with grand palaces, gowns and jewels. It is instead a sparse film that often places its characters in narrow corridors and elongated rooms, a cinematographic choice that perhaps represents the claustrophobic confines of Albert’s mind. One particularly lovely shot has Albert facing the Accession Council – the room is overwhelmingly large, the council’s an overwhelmingly large bunch, Albert is a lone overwhelmed figure.

Colin Firth is superb as the king who overcomes his stammer as also his monarchical arrogance through his alliance with that damned Aussie who insists on calling him Bertie. Geoffrey Rush is suitably smart and over-smart by turns as Lionel Logue. And it was such a joy watching Helena Bonham Carter not playing a mass murderer for a change. Watch her as she discusses Wallis Simpson, the woman for whom Edward VIII gave up his kingship. “Apparently she has certain skills acquired in an establishment in Shanghai,” says Elizabeth with well-disguised contempt.

This brings me to the major issue I have with The King’s Speech. Why did an affectionate portrayal of one brother necessitate a negative portrayal of the other? The film projects Edward VIII (played by Guy Pearce) as an irresponsible – even slightly silly – king who bullies his kid brother. History tells us Edward VIII was hugely popular. That popularity could not have come without good reason. So why did The King’s Speech need to be one-sided and weighed so heavily against him? If the coldness that is intrinsic to royal life extracted a heavy price on Albert/George’s morale, then he too was guilty of an equal level of iciness towards his brother’s wife. Wallis Simpson wrote in her autobiography The Heart Has Its Reasons, about The Family’s attitude towards her: “…I simply did not exist.”

She was no saint, but then nor were the royals. So why does Tom Hooper gloss over the hypocrisy of the British system that famously permitted King HenryVIII repeated annulments of his marriages in dubious circumstances in the 16^th century, yet in the 20^th century would not allow the King of England to marry a woman simply because she was a divorcee.

These were easily avoidable flaws in an otherwise lovely film. Oddly enough while The King’s Speech has been passed by Indian Censors with no cuts and a U rating despite the series of expletives used by some of the characters, in the US it got an R (Restricted) rating. Surely that must be R for Ridiculous considering that the scenes with those swear words are among the funniest and most heart-warming in the film! And don’t get me started on the double standards of the Indian Censors who don’t allow the F-word in an Indian film if it wants a U certificate!

While that debate continues, do watch The King’s Speech for its simplicity, its compassion and most of all for the genius of Colin Firth. At one point in the film, King Edward VIII says to his brother, “I've been terribly busy.” “Doing what?” asks the future King George VI. “Kinging,” comes the reply. Well, here’s another new word for you. May it be decreed that from this day forth, brilliant acting will also be known as ColinFirthing.

Rating (out of five): ****

Release date in the US:	November 26, 2010
MPAA Rating (US):	R (“for some language”). The producers have now re-edited the film & got a more lenient PG-13, no doubt to cash in on the post-Oscar hype. To hell with artistic integrity, eh Mr Weinstein?
CBFC Rating (India):	U with no cuts
Running time:	118 Minutes
Language:	English

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Speech