Get thrown for a loop

Looper
My rating:

I loved Brick, Rian Johnson's 2005 directorial debut and his first collaboration with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Hard-boiled noir in a high school setting is such an incongruous combination, but good gravy Johnson made it work and gave us one of the most clever and original films of that decade. I confess to having missed The Brothers Bloom, his second film; reviews I read gave me the impression that it was a well-done if unoriginal caper flick, and while I like those just fine, they're not something I go out of my way to catch. Science fiction, on the other hand, is just the kind of thing I'm very eager to watch, and I was very pumped for Johnson's foray into time-travel sci-fi. And for another thing, Gordon-Levitt is in it, and it seems like that guy just can't make a bad movie.

And this time - with Johnson - he's made one of the best time-travel movies of all time.

In 2044, there is a new breed of criminal known as "loopers". Their job is to murder people sent back from the future of 2074, when time travel has been invented and is only used by major crime syndicates. Eventually, one of the people they kill will be themself from the future, indicating that they've "closed their loop" and have the next 30 years to enjoy their riches. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one such looper, and he sees first hand what his boss Abe (Jeff Daniels) and Abe's hired thug Kid Blue (Noah Segan) will do to a looper who fails to kill his future self - namely, Joe's friend Seth (Paul Dano). Thus, when Joe's own future self (Bruce Willis) appears and escapes, Young Joe desperately tries to hunt Old Joe down and kill him. But Old Joe has his own reasons for coming to the past, which involve an isolated farm inhabited by a woman named Sara (Emily Blunt) and her preternaturally intelligent young son Cid (Pierce Gagnon).

What impressed me most about Brick was how self-assured it was. For a film by a first-time writer-director and featuring a premise that sounds ridiculous on paper, it displayed a remarkable confidence in itself and that its central conceit would work. (And work it did.) That confidence and self-assurance is on display in Looper as well; take, for instance, the part when Old Joe first appears in 2044 and escapes his younger self's grasp. The very next scene is Young Joe killing his future self in an apparent repeat of what we've just seen, only with a different outcome. This initial "Huh?" moment is followed by a montage of how Joe spends the next 30 years of his "retirement" in Shanghai, and how he eventually meets his wife (Qing Xu). And in the middle of this montage, Gordon-Levitt becomes Bruce Willis, simultaneously establishing that Old Joe and Young Joe are the same person as well as marking the distinction between them. The entire sequence is a flashback from Old Joe's point of view - and the way we switch between both Joes' POVs is yet another narrative trick that Johnson employs with aplomb.

Because this is essentially an action thriller in which the hero and villain are the same person - and a none-too-heroic person at that. For much of the movie, it isn't clear whether it's Old Joe or Young Joe whom we should root for; both of them are at times pretty unlikable, and at one point one of them crosses a major moral horizon in a shocking manner. Imagine how a lesser writer or filmmaker would've handled such a premise; in fact, don't imagine, it's been done. It's arguably as much a character study as it is a sci-fi action thriller, delving deep into the psychology of Old and Young Joe - again, the same person. Such a focus on character is rare for this genre, and the time travel premise gives it an innovative new spin; Old Joe dealing with the fallout of his younger self's actions, Young Joe trying to avoid his older self's fate. Themes of destiny, free will and morality intertwine, and ultimately resolve in a marvelously satisfying climax. Seriously, I was open-mouthed in shock at the ending - shock that quickly turned into awe at how great an ending it was.

Oh, did I mention there's telekinesis in this movie? Why no, I didn't in the synopsis above, so I shall discuss it here. Yes, this is a future in which 10% of the population are born with telekinetic abilities, albeit limited to simple parlour tricks - hence it is treated as another mundane part of life in dystopian 2044. (And yes, it is dystopian, as Johnson wisely shows but never outright tells; there are roving gangs of murderous vagrants in almost every street, while criminals like Joe and his fellow loopers flaunt their wealth above it all. Which adds economic inequality to its themes.) Some have criticised it as an unnecessary and tacked-on element, but they're wrong; throwing telekinesis into a time-travel action thriller is yet another daring decision by Johnson that he pulls off with that same self-assurance. It turns out Cid is a telekinetic, which adds an even greater sense of unpredictable danger to the tense climactic confrontation set entirely on Sara's and Cid's farm. Without telekinesis in the mix, that entire sequence would be much less thrilling and suspenseful.

It's almost a cliché by now to praise Joseph Gordon-Levitt's acting. He wears prosthetic makeup meant to make him look like a young Bruce Willis, and it's a credit to both his talent and the makeup artist that the prosthetics do not drown his performance. It's also been reported that he deliberately mimicked Willis' mannerisms, which I did not notice, but which I certainly will when I get this film on DVD - particularly in the diner scene between Young Joe and his older self. Willis' current career alternates between paycheck roles and parts in which he gets to display his real acting chops, and this is one of the latter. But frankly, I thought they were both overshadowed by two of their co-stars. Emily Blunt is fantastic here, playing the tough yet vulnerable, frightened yet warm single mother Sara, one of the most sympathetic heroines of the year. (She's also one of very few sexually aggressive heroines - yet another example of Johnson breaking convention because he knows he can do it well.) And Pierce Gagnon is revelatory. I couldn't believe he's 10 years old; his delivery of his precociously eloquent dialogue makes Cid sound half his age, and his incredibly controlled performance gives the character layers beyond the Creepy Child trope and bespeaks a talent beyond his years.

And there's also Jeff Daniels' laidback mob boss Abe, and his pathetically ineffectual lackey Kid Blue - both of whom tease possibilities that, this being about time travel and all, they might turn out to be more important than they seem. (Abe is in fact from the future, and he gets the movie's funniest line when he tells Joe which country to spend his retirement in.) And there's the virtuouso scene that shows us, in stunningly gruesome-yet-bloodless detail, what happens to a looper who fails to close his loop. Yes, this one gets a  4-½-star rating all right, only the third one I'm giving out this year. It damn well is one of the best time-travel movies ever. It's clever, inventive, humanistic and thought-provoking, yet never forgets that it's also an action thriller. And all pulled off with equal amounts skill and surety by Johnson. Rian Johnson, man. Look out for this guy. If Looper's success - modest, but nothing to be ashamed of - vaults him out of the indie realm and into big-budget studio projects, the future looks like something worth looking forward to.

NEXT REVIEW: Skyfall
Expectations: sky high!

Bourne to be classics

The first three Bourne films is one of my favourite film series, but I've never actually seen all three back-to-back - in fact, I may have not even rewatched any of them from start to finish. Mostly I just watch clips of its action sequences; each one has at least one signature hand-to-hand fight scene and one car chase scene. And most of them are terrific action sequences, among the best of the entire action film genre - which is why, as an action film aficionado, I like this series so much. But partly also why I like it is that it is, in my book, one of the most consistently good movie series ever. Unlike most trilogies, there's not a single disappointing entry, and certainly not any one that feels like a major letdown from its predecessors. Which is a pretty rare accomplishment - but since Hollywood just can't leave well enough alone, there's now a fourth instalment to potentially spoil that record. So before we review that, let's take a look back at what was previously known as the Bourne Trilogy (and will probably still be known as the Bourne Trilogy with Matt Damon In It.)


The Bourne Identity (2002)
My rating:




Perhaps the most notable thing about the first of the series is that it turned out as good as it is. It underwent a troubled production, with reshoots and script rewrites that took it over budget and delayed its initial release. This is undoubtedly why director Doug Liman was removed from (or quit) the series - which, given his replacement in Paul Greengrass, was likely for the better. Still, Liman helmed the film that started it all, and his vision of a smart, realistic spy action film survives despite the studio interference. In 2002, the Pierce Brosnan era of James Bond films was winding down with Die Another Day, one of the cheesiest and most over-the-top in the long-running series - and that same year, the Vin Diesel-starring xXx tried to be the "extreme attitude" version of Bond. Compared to those two, The Bourne Identity felt like a breath of fresh air.

In particular, the fight scene between Bourne and Castel, the first of the CIA assassins sent to kill our amnesiac hero. It's short and brutal and I unreservedly love it; it's perhaps the first time I've ever seen a fight between two combatants who are trained not to fight, but to kill. A great many action movies made in the succeeding years owe a debt to this one scene. Aside from it, there's a fun little car chase (that would be eclipsed by Greengrass' work in the sequels) and a tense cat-and-mouse hunt through a rural countryside (with Clive Owen!). Still, nothing beats that early fight scene; certainly nothing in the climax, which feels curiously anti-climactic, perhaps a casualty of the bickering between Liman and Universal Pictures. It also doesn't feel as consistent tonally as the later Greengrass-helmed entries; at times, there are glimpses of a light-heartedness that seems incongruous with its two sequels.

But that may be due to the romance between Jason Bourne and Marie Kreutz, played by Franka Potente. It's the only film in the series in which Bourne isn't alone and hunted for the majority of the running time, and thus it's the only one in which he gets to make an emotional connection with another person. Their romance works, largely due to both actors; Potente is appealing, and Damon ever only allows a hint of a genuine smile when he's talking to her. But what Damon's performance is most notable for is turning him into a terrifically effective action hero. Back then, no one thought he had that in him at all - and while he proved up to the physical requirements by doing most of his own stunts, his tightly-controlled acting also helped create an indelible character in the tormented, deceptively deadly Bourne. As a thinking person's action movie, it succeeds handily, and did it it many ways that we had never seen before.


The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
My rating




A new director, a new visual and narrative style, and a bona fide classic film franchise is Bourne (hee). The Bourne Identity was a respectable success, if a little more critically than financially, but The Bourne Supremacy ramps up all its predecessor's strengths and improves on the flaws. The signature hand-to-hand fight scene is every bit as brutal and bloody. The car chase features a lot more vehicular carnage and makes the one from the first film look lame (which it isn't; it's just that this one is so much more thrilling). Where the pace of the previous one felt conventional, with expositionary and character-building scenes interspersed between action setpieces, this one is gripping and propulsive from start to finish. If there's one weakness, it's that the plot is almost too hard to follow. There's no easy audience surrogate character like Marie; Bourne is practically as much an enigma as anyone else, in a story full of practiced deception and hidden agendas.

Of course, Greengrass' direction doesn't make it any easier either. But I'll defend his much-maligned shaky-cam style anytime; there is a right way and a wrong way to do it, and Greengrass knows how to do it right. His most well-known previous credit, the faux-documentary Bloody Sunday, made him an unusual choice for a big-budget Hollywood actioner, but it proved to be an inspired one. Unlike the imitators, his style of filming action scenes isn't haphazard and mindlessly chaotic; he chooses his shots, angles and cuts very, very deliberately. He plays scrupulously fair in showing you exactly what you need to figure out what's going on, and you can figure it out if you're attentive enough. And you can then immerse yourself in the immensely thrilling sense of immediacy and urgency that it creates, and that just so happens to be terrifically well-suited to a spy action thriller.

But what makes this film perhaps the best in the series - and yes, I do think it's the best in the series - is the emotional journey that Bourne undertakes. Credit for this goes to screenwriter Tony Gilroy, who took the previous entry's happy ending and completely shits over it - but in so, gives Jason Bourne a motive that we've never seen in an action hero before. People still make the mistake that the movie is all about his revenge; it's not, not at all. It's about his need to know the truth of who he was and what he did, and why the girl he loved had to pay the price for his sins. It isn't till almost the very end that this is revealed, but upon subsequent viewings, it's there in Damon's remarkably subtle performance. Bourne is never truly angry or vicious throughout - just frustrated by his memory loss and haunted by his guilt. And it culminates in a quietly poignant scene that's the last thing you'd expect in a spy action thriller. For doing what it does tremendously well, and daring to be even more... yes, I think this is the one that'll stand out as the best in the franchise.


The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
My rating:




I remember being pretty pumped for this movie, to the point where I forked out good dough for Gold Class seats. It was worth it. The early scene set at London's Waterloo Station is a bravura sequence of crackerjack tension, in which Bourne tries to herd a hapless journalist out of a gauntlet of CIA assassins, demonstrating our hero's quick thinking and street smarts in addition to his already-known badassery. This third entry greatly extends the role of Nicky Parsons, a character who had been on the fringes of the previous two; Julia Stiles is an always welcome presence and makes a good match with Damon. (Although it's never very clear why she would help Bourne - seems like Stockholm Syndrome more than anything else.) Once again we get one terrific fight scene and one terrific car chase scene; the latter especially is the most bone-jarring (and expensive) one yet. And as a conclusion to the trilogy, it does a nice job of calling back to scenes from the previous films, and even reinterprets the final scene from The Bourne Supremacy in a clever way.

So why the lower rating? Because what's lost is the emotional depth of its immediate predecessor. This time, Bourne is on a quest to discover the truth of his past as a man-made killing machine, which is a little less compelling than a man driven to atone for his past sins out of mourning for his lost love. There are small references to the grief he still feels for Marie, but they don't stand out amidst the railroad plot. Which is what this movie is almost entirely - a bullet train of an action-thriller that dashes breathlessly from one plot point to another. The Bourne Supremacy was that too, until the scene with Neski's daughter changed everything. This one doesn't. What it has is when Bourne returns to the research centre where Operation Treadstone began, where he first started becoming what he is now - and frankly, it feels a bit of a letdown. It feels like the whole movie should've been leading up to something more revelatory, more surprising.

It feels much more like a Greengrass film, less of a Gilroy one. Gilroy's emphasis on Bourne's emotional journey is replaced by Greengrass' political leanings, seen in how he villainises the CIA as running a black ops unit that seems to spend as much time killing civilians who threaten to expose them as they do stopping actual terrorist threats. (Gilroy's screenplay draft was reportedly completely unused, and Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi were doing emergency rewrites in the midst of shooting.) And it's also telling that of all the heartless CIA suits in the series, the only two with a conscience are women. Still, the white-knuckle tension and intelligent, realistic take on modern spy action are present and accounted for, making this a worthy entry and conclusion to the series. There's sure as hell no drop in quality in the action scenes, which, let's face it, is what we come to these movies for.

-----

I mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating and elaborating on: the Bourne series is notable as much for how influential it is as how good it is. The fight scenes in particular; if The Bourne Identity's fight was fresh and unique at the time, since then there've been an embarrassment of riches in terms of quick, brutal and realistic (well, more realistic) fight scenes. But often, that's the only thing the other movies managed to imitate successfully. The unrelenting pace, the grittily real tone, the scrupulous respect for the audience's intelligence - these more intangible things are still unparalleled. So yeah, as this post title indicates, the Bourne Trilogy (with Matt Damon In It) are bona fide modern film classics in my book. They sit at the pinnacles of their genre. Anyone who doesn't like 'em, you can pretty much write them off as someone who just doesn't get action movies. (Yes, such people exist.)

A village called murder

Bunohan
My rating:




To be honest, I've always been skeptical about local films that supposedly "make it big" at film festivals in foreign shores. As the excellent Bill Martell puts it, film festivals are mostly scams, aimed primarily at making money for their organisers; showcasing cinematic excellence from around the world is only a secondary objective. So while I'm certainly happy for James Lee, Ho Yuhang, Woo Ming Jin and other homegrown indie filmmakers who got to exhibit their works overseas and earn the accolades (or even just attention) that they'd never get from local audiences, whatever they achieved there seems fleeting and small; who still remembers their films, years after? Which is why Bunohan looks like it might finally make a real impact - if only because it was selected for the Toronto International Film Festival. Now that's a persada dunia with real prestige, second only to the Cannes Film Festival. And with reviews in Variety and Hollywood Reporter fueling the good ol' Malaysia Boleh! spirit, no surprise it's become the most highly-anticipated local film in a long while.

And damn, it certainly lives up to it. But damn - this is the kind of film in which saying "it's good" doesn't begin to describe it.

Ilham (Faizal Hussein), Bakar (Pekin Ibrahim) and Adil (Zahiril Adzim) are three estranged half-brothers, sons of the old wayang kulit puppetmaster Pok Eng (Wan Hanafi Su). Ilham is a hitman for a Thai crime syndicate, charged by his keeper Deng (Bront Palarae) with finding a tomoi kickboxer who fled his fight and doesn't necessarily have to bring him back alive. Adil is that kickboxer, reluctantly rescued by his friend Muski (Amerul Affendi) and brought back to his old mentor Pok Wah (Namron). Bakar is scheming to obtain his father's ancestral lands in order to sell it to developers, and has his henchman Jolok (Hushairy Hussein) bribing and threatening anyone who stands in his way. The fractured family converge on their home village of Bunohan, Kelantan, where the spectre of Ilham's mother Mek Yah (Tengku Azura) still haunts the swamps and beaches. Their tale will be one of corruption, betrayal, despair, violence - and yes, murder.

Oh wow. Where do I start with this one? I actually watched this weeks ago, during its gala premiere. And then I waited a week till it opened in cinemas so I could watch it again. Because I just didn't get it. But I did already know, after my first viewing, that I'd just seen something amazing. Bunohan has elements of family drama, crime thriller, fight flick, gothic noir and tragedy, and it weaves all these threads in a highly assured and terrifically compelling manner. But there's also a deeper layer of magical realism, dream-like mysticism and supernatural surreality, and these are the parts that left me scratching my head. In a good way. (I'm just glad I wasn't fooled by the trailers into thinking it would be a kickboxing action movie. Even with its kickboxing scenes and its dizzying mix of genres, this is the one it's furthest from.)

Let me talk about the parts that I did understand first, the mundane layers. ("Mundane" not meaning "boring.") The fractured family of father and three sons recalls King Lear, if there were two Cordelias and only one of Goneril and Regan. Bakar is the unequivocal villain of the story, smoothly doling out wads of cash to those he wants indebted to him, and just as smoothly following up on his threats to those who fail to do what he says. One of his victims is Awang Sonar (Soffi Jikan, in an uncharacteristically subdued role), owner of a tomoi club that Bakar wants to take over, who also runs a fish farm; Bakar's use of poison on Awang's fish is symbolically apt. It's galling how Jolok goes around the village selling his reputation as "banyak tolong orang" - and in addition, the smarmy, slimy Jolok is one of the most hateable characters I've ever seen in a local film. In a cast with not a single disappointing performance, Hushairy Hussein is the standout for me.

And of the two Cordelias, one is an assassin sent to kill the other. Here's a guy who wields a wickedly curved kerambit and kills brutally, shockingly and in an utterly matter-of-fact manner; taking human lives is just something he does and does well. But once Ilham arrives in Bunohan and hides out with his old friend Jing (Jimmy Lor), he becomes more interested in the fact that Jolok's goons have been digging up old graves from his family's lands and haphazardly burying them elsewhere, including his own mother's. Which incurs his murderous wrath, but also distracts him from his mission - and you know it ain't good news when Deng shows up to find out what's taking him so long to do his job. (More so given the fact that Deng and Ilham are close friends.) Compared to his brothers, Adil is the least complicated, but also the easiest to root for. He is the one son with whom Pok Eng wishes to reconcile, being his father's intended heir of their ancestral land on which a greater conflict between man and nature is taking place.

And it is this subplot in which most of the mystical elements appear - including talking birds, a half-woman-half-crocodile, and a little boy who occasionally speaks in Pok Eng's voice and may be either a figment of his imagination (yet Bakar can see him too!) or a supernatural creature. Yes, they sound silly, but Dain succeeds at creating a delicate, half-surreal tone in which they become significant - that the earthly struggles of the villagers are but one aspect of the clash between materialism and mysticism, greed and spirituality, the old and the new. Yet the dunia halus of the swamps and beaches isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows either, if its effects on Ilham and Adil - both touched by the otherworldly, both men of violence, both lost and tortured souls - demonstrate. It may be threatened, and dying, and plaintively pleading for its own survival, but it's also wholly alien and dangerous in its own way.

The more I write about this film (and yes, I know how long it's taken me to finish this review), the more I realize it isn't meant to be fully understood. Who was that little boy? What's with those talking birds? Whose were the sounds of lovemaking that Ilham heard when he snuck under his father's house to retrieve mementoes of his mother - or was that his father's house? Did Mek Yah really transform into a crocodile? And what was the significance of Ilham's dream, which involved slaughtered crocodiles and his mother standing in front of Egyptian pyramids? You're welcome to debate these questions and think of your own interpretations - but if you were puzzled and infuriated by them, you're meant to be. You're also meant to be immersed completely in its twisty storyline, clever dialogue, flawless acting, breathtaking cinematography, and fascinating world of a rural Kelantanese village that is probably as unfamiliar to the average KL-dweller as is the supernatural world it borders.

So yes, Bunohan deserves my highest rating to date for a local film. I have never seen one that's as ambitious, and that succeeds so well at its ambitions; even Songlap, for all that it's a terrific crime drama in its own right, doesn't match this one in its aims. And if Songlap flopped at the local box-office, I can only shudder to imagine how well this one will do. But in a film industry that struggles to even be competent at such lowbrow fare as broad comedies, cheap horror movies and trashy action flicks, Bunohan hits stellar heights. It is so far above the typical Ahmad Idham/Razak Mohaideen/Syamsul Yusof fare that their usual audiences are likely simply unable to even comprehend its startling and singularly unique vision. (I doubt even those three fellas can.) For the rest of us though - we should count ourselves lucky to have it.

NEXT REVIEW: John Carter
Expectations: of Andrew Stanton, pretty high

Humour soothes grief, but only understanding can cure it

The Descendants
My rating:




I have only ever watched one Alexander Payne film, that being Sideways. (When Election first came out I was eager to watch it, but could never find it on DVD; I somehow never got inclined enough to catch About Schmidt; and I've barely even heard a thing about Citizen Ruth.) Mainly I liked it because I saw a lot of myself in the Paul Giamatti character, whereas the Thomas Hayden Church character reminded me just as much of a close friend of mine. Personal issues aside, that's pretty much what I remember most about it, but I think I might want to hunt down the DVD and watch it again soon.

Because after his latest film, Payne might just have become one of my most eagerly anticipated filmmakers.

Matt King's (George Clooney) life is thrown into upheaval after his wife Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie) is rendered comatose in a boating accident. He now has to reconnect with his daughters - 10-year-old Scottie (Amara Miller) who is showing signs of inappropriate behaviour, and 17-year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) who has a history of rebelliousness and substance abuse - as well as his drifting-apart marriage. In addition, Matt is also the sole trustee of several thousand acres of pristine Hawaiian land, and he is in the midst of negotiating its sale whilst gathering the consent of his extended network of cousins, including Cousin Hugh (Beau Bridges). When the doctor tells him that Elizabeth will never recover, he has to break the news to all their friends as well as his in-laws, in particular Elizabeth's doting father (Robert Forster). But when Alex reveals that his wife had been cheating on him, Matt is goaded into seeking out Elizabeth's lover - a man named Brian Speer (Matthew Lillard), who it turns out also has a wife (Judy Greer) - with his daughters and Alex's dimwitted friend Sid (Nick Krause) tagging along. What good it would do to confront the man though, Matt has no idea.

The Descendants reminds me a lot of 50/50. Both are films that deal with death and tragedy and leaven them with comedy. But though I liked that Jonathan Levine-directed Joseph Gordon-Levitt-starrer plenty, my main criticism of it is that its balance of comedy and drama seemed a little skewed to the former, and didn't right itself till the latter half. Payne, working off a screenplay he co-wrote based on the novel of the same name by Kaui Hart Hemmings, avoids this neatly. It maintains a consistent tone throughout - and that tone is a quirky, bemused contemplation of how tragedy leads to the kind of ignominy that also lends itself to comedy. The death of a wife, mother, daughter and friend is dealt with in all its heartbreaking sadness, yet the humour of the film never undermines it - nor does it ever descend into tear-jerking melodrama. The film's tightrope walk between funny and tragic is a thing to behold.

There are several instances where the tragedy of the story is undercut almost immediately afterwards by humour. The scene where Matt first tells Alex about her mother's impending death, for one; she submerges herself in the swimming pool and screams her anguish underwater, then berates her dad for telling such news to her while she's swimming. Or when Matt does the same to his father-in-law; right after a father learns of the death of his adult daughter, Sid says something hilariously insensitive that earns him a facepunch. The character of Sid provides much of the comic relief, with his goofy grin and his stoner-casual attitude towards the family's tragedy - but there's a later scene that reveals exactly why Alex is friends with him and why she wants him around during this time. There's also a liberal amount of profanity in the dialogue (none of which is censored, yay!), and one of the funniest running gags is Matt's complete inability to control his daughters' - both his daughters - vulgar language.

But I fear I'm talking too much of the film's surface. It's a richly emotionally resonant film, one that's not making it easy for me to talk about all its themes and depths. Its main throughline would be how Matt comes to terms with what Elizabeth meant to him, in all her good and bad; the first time he visits her after he learns of her infidelity, he launches into an angry and vicious tirade, seeking answers she can no longer give. But almost immediately after, when Alex does the same - for her own reasons to be angry at her mother - Matt chastises her to be more respectful. For all that he is an absentee father and neglectful husband, he is still a good, responsible man; at first he balks at the prospect of informing their large network of friends about his wife's inevitable death, but he goes through it with a minimum of fuss, despite the immense emotional toll it takes on him. And he speaks glowingly of their initial courtship when Scottie innocently asks him how they met. It isn't till he confronts Brian Speer that he finds the answers he seeks - why she did what she did, and who she truly was.

I admit that I still have trouble thinking of George Clooney as a serious dramatic actor, despite his current penchant for roles in movies like Michael Clayton, Up in the Air and The Ides of March; I still tend to think of him as the action hero of The Peacemaker and Batman and Robin and the icon of suaveness in Out of Sight and Ocean's Eleven. Maybe I should revise my thinking. During the scene where Alex first tells him about Elizabeth's affair, Clooney plays it with a coiled and intimidating fury that seems distinctly un-Matt-King-like - and right after, he undercuts this in just the right way with a remarkable bit of physical acting. (The way he runs.) The performances are terrific, even from supporting actors like Robert Forster, Amara Miller, Beau Bridges and Judy Greer, but the one other standout is Shailene Woodley, whose most prominent previous credit is a teen TV series. Some may think it a copout that her difficult relationship with her father is repaired so easily, but me, I loved seeing her join forces with Matt in getting back at Brian with an almost malicious glee. (It also helps that she is frequently bikini-clad and looks drop-dead gorgeous in them.)

And there's also its depiction of Hawaii, a part of the US that is rarely seen in movies and very different from the glitzy and glamourous Los Angeles that most Hollywood movies are filmed in. Early on, a voiceover by Matt skewers the common perception of the islands as paradise by saying "Paradise can go f**k itself." And indeed, we see plenty of the dull suburban streets and office parks of Honolulu (the state capital), and there's plenty of local colour in how all the locals - even the rich folk - dress in aloha shirts and bermuda shorts all the time. On the other hand, the seaside land owned by Matt's family, descended from genuine Hawaiian royalty (did you know Hawaii had a royal family?) is stunningly beautiful. And part of the film's unique setting is in Matt's background of having a fabulously wealthy inheritance, which he steadfastly refuses to flaunt or squander - unlike some of his cousins. One of the threads in the complex tangle of Matt and Elizabeth's relationship is that she resents him for not spending more of his money on her, against his principle of frugality - and how he may now regret it.

Now that I come to think about it, The Descendants has a great deal in common with the 2008 Japanese film Departures. Both deal with the messy business of mortality; how death strikes without warning and rarely, if ever, offers its next of kin the closure that humans need; and how we go about finding that closure when it seems the only person who can offer it is gone forever. It is a universal truth that our lives are finite, but death is such an alien thing, so outside of human comprehension - and thus a film like this, that aims to shed light on it with wit and warmth and insight, is a rare treasure. If all you expect from movies is empty spectacle and frivolous laughs, I urge you to catch this one - a film that is real and true and human. As I've said before, watching a really good human drama will make you a better person.

NEXT REVIEW: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Expectations: *snort of derision*

Mission accomplished, and then some

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
My rating:




The Mission: Impossible film franchise is a curious one. Ostensibly based on the '60s TV series but often having little in common with it - since the hallmark of the show was a tightly-coordinated team pulling off an elaborate con, but the movies usually focused on the solo exploits of Ethan Hunt. There's little continuity between each instalment; the only common denominator is Hunt, who fell passionately in love with a girl in the second film that was replaced by another "one true love of his life" in the third. Even the tone of each three is radically different, since they were made by different directors: Brian DePalma (twisty and convoluted), John Woo (lush and operatic) and J.J. Abrams (gritty and intensely personal). I really did want to do Retro Reviews of them prior to reviewing the new one, if not for - again - lack of time.

But I can say that Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is the best of them yet, not to mention the best popcorn movie of the year.

Disavowed IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is broken out from a Russian prison by an IMF team comprising Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and Jane Carter (Paula Patton). Their purpose is to have him lead them in a mission to recover Russian nuclear launch codes that were stolen by an assassin named Sabine Moreau (Léa Seydoux) - who murdered Carter's lover and fellow agent - and is working for a shadowy figure code-named Cobalt, a.k.a. Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist). But just as the team is infiltrating the Kremlin in order to retrieve vital information, Hendricks orchestrates a massive bombing of the Kremlin and frames the IMF and the U.S. government for it, putting Russian intelligence agent Sidorov (Vladimir Mashkov) hot on Hunt's tail. The President initiates Ghost Protocol, disavowing the entire IMF and leaving Hunt and his team on their own - although they also pick up a new member in William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), an analyst with a mysterious past. Hendricks means to drive the United States and Russia into global thermonuclear war, and the mission is for Hunt, Dunn, Carter and Brandt to stop him - a mission that will take them from Moscow through Dubai to Mumbai.

Fwoar! That was a perfectly-crafted piece of rollercoaster action cinema. And the man to thank for it is Brad Bird, making his live-action directorial debut; he's more known for being an animation director, having helmed my favourite Pixar film of all time, The Incredibles, as well as Ratatouille and The Iron Giant. (Which is also a brilliant and severely underrated animated film; go watch it now if you haven't.) It turns out Bird's animation sensibilities are perfect for action movies; Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol does everything right that n00bs like Michael Bay and Paul W.S. Anderson get wrong. The highlight of the film is the Dubai sequence, in which Hunt climbs around the outside of the Burj Khalifa; Bird's camera succeeds terrifically at capturing the heart-stopping vertigo of the world's tallest building (something that Brett Ratner failed at). And with nary a pause for breath, he follows that up with a foot-and-car-chase through a sandstorm that's almost as pulse-poundingly thrilling - and the climactic fight scene in Mumbai set in a vertical, multi-platform parking garage that's a masterclass in complex yet coherently-filmed action.

What does Bird do to distinguish this instalment of the M:I franchise from the others? He makes it the most purely fun one yet. It's not an out-and-out action comedy, but there's a light touch throughout the film that meshes remarkably well with the ostensibly serious, world-shaking stakes. Simon Pegg, returning as Benji Dunn from the last film, provides most of the comic relief, but there are flashes of humour from Cruise, Jeremy Renner and the Anil Kapoor cameo - all of which emerge naturally from the characters and never seem contrived or break the overall tone. And early on, there's a deliciously suspenseful sequence in the Kremlin involving an ingenious piece of holographic technology, that perfectly illustrates its blend of laughs and tension. Humour tends to deflate suspense, but Bird balances them perfectly and allows them to complement each other. In fact, the tension never lets up, through a trick the screenplay - by André Nemec and Josh Appelbaum, who both wrote several episodes of Abrams' TV series Alias - employs again and again: at every turn, our heroes' plans keep going wrong.

To be honest, the strings being pulled here are somewhat obvious; at one point, the machine that makes those face masks, for which the series is famous, breaks down for - I swear to God - no reason whatsoever. Leaving our heroes to attempt a con job on the bad guys bare-faced, thus upping the tension of that scene. This is the most contrived example I noticed, but practically every plan of theirs is full of things going wrong and their mission becoming more and more impossible. But hey, remember the title of the movie? Why should you mind an action movie that goes out of its way to be suspenseful? Far better than an action movie that pulls strings to get its heroes out of tight spots, via deus ex machina contrivances that leave audiences feeling cheated; Nemec and Appelbaum (with contributions from Bird, surely) employ diabolus ex machinas that force Hunt and his team to work even harder and rely even more on improvisation, ingenuity, teamwork and sheer dogged determination. And why should you mind an action movie that gives its protagonists such qualities?

What I expect Bird also brought to Nemec's and Appelbaum's screenplay is a polish on all the characters. There's no such thing as superfluous characters in animation (which is ironic, considering how much more alive and interesting an animated character can be than a flesh-and-blood one), and there are none here; everyone contributes to the film, whether via the main plot or a subplot of their own or even just to provide a funny moment or two. Even Sidorov, the Russian cop who's the Wile E. Coyote to Ethan Hunt's Roadrunner and has barely 10 minutes of total screentime, gets fleshed out well enough for us to appreciate his presence. Don't get me wrong - this is an action movie, not an in-depth character study like, oh, say, The Hurt Locker. William Brandt is clearly not as complex and multi-dimensional as Will James, even if both characters were played by the same actor. But the little amounts of personality that this film gives to all its characters is not only welcome, it's also what very few action movies do well or even bother to do.

There's already been talk of a fifth Mission: Impossible movie, owing to the stellar reviews and strong early box-office for this one - which, I have to say, does not exactly make me eagerly anticipate the next one. Such is the nature of this franchise; each entry has been so different from each other, with so little in the way of continuity, that there's little reason to expect the next one will be as good as this one. (Oh, and speaking of continuity, there is a nod to the last film in here, and it's a welcome and good-natured one considering Mission: Impossible III ended on an unequivocally happy note for Hunt.) Unless, of course, it's directed by Brad Bird, who is the only real winner here. The latest news indicates his next project will be another animated film, but there's no doubt he'll be inundated with offers to direct more live-action movies and that he'll have his pick of the lot. I'm hoping he'll take one of them, and use the new-found Hollywood cachet that's clearly coming his way to give us another dazzling film - action or otherwise. I'll be first in line for his next, whatever it may be and whatever medium it's in. There's no way I won't, after he made the best action movie of the year and earned a definite spot in my list of best movies of the year.

NEXT REVIEW: Songlap
Expectations: oh boy, this looks good

Wars within the human soul

Warrior
My rating:




It has not escaped my attention that we are now entering the last quarter of 2011, but I've only given a rating of more than 4 stars to one film. (And Black Swan is strictly speaking a 2010 release.) It also worries me that my last top 10 list of the year had no 5-starrers and quite a few 4-starrers; there've been plenty of the latter this year, what with some great summer blockbusters, but no really great films. Maybe it's just 'cos all the Oscar hopefuls usually get released around this time, although when they'll make it to Malaysian screens is anybody's guess. But I gotta say, since my tastes run to the commercial and the genre-driven, I'm kinda disappointed that there hasn't been an Inception or a Toy Story 3 or even a Scott Pilgrim vs. the World this year.

Be that as it may, it gives me great pleasure to review a new movie that's virtually certain to be one of my favourites of 2011.

The Conlon family is not a happy one. Its members - patriarch Paddy (Nick Nolte) and his two sons Brendan (Joel Edgerton) and Tommy (Tom Hardy) - are all estranged from one another, largely due to Paddy's former alcoholism and abusive behaviour. Then one day Tommy, a former U.S. Marine, returns from his tour of duty in Iraq and asks his now remorseful father to train him for an MMA (mixed martial arts) tournament - but all Tommy wants is to train, not to forgive or reconcile. Meanwhile, Brendan and his wife Tess (Jennifer Morrison) face foreclosure on their house, unable to make ends meet on his high school teacher job. He approaches his old friend Frank Campano (Frank Grillo), a gym owner and MMA trainer, to train him in amateur fights for money. Both brothers and father unknowingly enter the same tournament, one that both fighters are desperate to win - and the confrontation that they're headed for, both physical and emotional, will force them to deal with the wounds that tore their family apart.

Ah, the pleasures of a good, effective, heart-tugging family drama - the kind of film I haven't seen since Brothers over a year ago. That one was arguably more raw and honest, but this one has fight scenes. It's a sports movie with a deceptively simple twist on the sports movie formula; the genre usually demands that the hero(es) wins the big climactic fight/match/race/competition, which means the ending is usually a foregone conclusion. (Although, of course, good sports movies can still generate tension with great characters and exciting direction.) Warrior gives us two protagonists, both relatable, both sympathetic, both with a huge personal stake in wanting to win, then pits them against each other in a match that's truly unpredictable. And makes them brothers to boot.

I said deceptively simple. 'Cos it's tricky enough to create one relatable, sympathetic protagonist, much less two - much less pit them against each other and make us dread the outcome in which one has to lose. Warrior even throws a third character into the mix - their father - and makes it all work through gritty and humanistic storytelling. The writing - by Gavin O'Connor, Cliff Dorfman and Anthony Tambakis - is superb, and invests even minor characters like Tess (a somewhat thankless role as Brendan's wife) and Frank Campano (played by Frank Grillo, a bit actor who's probably never been given such a great script before in his career) with warmth and dimension. But it is Paddy's scenes that earn the greatest poignancy; he is a pitiable old man, desperately scrabbling for forgiveness from his sons, neither of whom are willing to give it. His sins must have been severe for them to hate him so, yet his struggle to redeem himself - in his own eyes as well as theirs - is heartbreaking.

Which brings us to his sons, the two protagonists. Brendan is the more sympathetic, and his motivation for entering a dangerous, punishing MMA tournament the more identifiable. All he wants is to make enough money to save his family home, and he's too proud to take the bankruptcy option offered by his bank officer (played with understated smarminess by Noah Emmerich) whose bad financial advice is what got him in trouble in the first place. The film pulls out all the underdog tricks in getting the audience invested in him; he's a beloved teacher to his students, he's a dark horse competitor amongst professional (and feared) fighters, and his fighting strategy seems to be to take a good beating at the start of every match before turning the tables. But the character work works long before the fighting starts, and the scenes where Brendan and Tess discuss their bleak circumstances are compelling stuff.

However, Tommy's story is darker, more complex, and its resolution ultimately more vital to the film's climax. He's a lot less easier to sympathize with than Brendan; taciturn, emotionally closed-off, and employing a savage fighting style that takes out opponents within seconds. And he is no less vicious with his own father; when he tells Paddy, "I liked you better when you were drunk," he knows exactly what effect those words will have. His reason for entering the tournament is gradually revealed over the course of the film, but what truly motivates him didn't become clear until the final moments. It's beautifully conveyed entirely wordlessly, and I wouldn't dare spoil it here; suffice to say that it isn't what it first appears to be. In many ways, Tommy is the true wounded heart of the film - the one soul most damaged by the breakup of the Conlon family, long before the story begins.

None of this is brilliantly inventive of course; despite the twist of pitting two protagonists against each other, it still largely adheres to the sports movie formula. But where it shines is in the execution - plot, dialogue, and especially acting. Warrior boasts three of the finest male performances you'll see all year, in Joel Edgerton, Nick Nolte and Tom Hardy. Hardy's is almost completely internalized and the most demanding, but he was fantastic; I was especially impressed by how his body language was simultaneously intimidating yet vulnerable. He's on his way to becoming one of the best working actors today (it's certainly a long way from Star Trek: Nemesis) and definitely raises anticipation for his upcoming role as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. Nolte is raw, soul-baring and heartbreaking, and it's one of the best in his long veteran career. Edgerton gets the least flashy role, but he'd be terrific even if the movie was a purely formulaic underdog sports film all about Brendan. I'd be very surprised if at least one of them don't get an Oscar nomination next year.

I could quibble about its imperfections - how director Gavin O'Connor's penchant for tight close-ups and hand-held camerawork tends to be somewhat distracting, how the fight scenes are spastically shot and edited (and one in particular ends a little too abruptly), and how the ending chooses to be ambiguous rather than neat and tidy. But these are quibbles in the face of how soaringly, intensely emotional that ending was. I can't exactly say I'm surprised at how good Warrior was - because I have, of course, read the glowing reviews from AV Club and James Berardinelli. But if you haven't heard anything about it, I think you'd be surprised at how such a generic-looking "ta kau" flick could turn out so amazingly effective. Want more proof? At the end of my screening, people were applauding. I felt like doing so too.

NEXT REVIEW: Fright Night
Expectations: vaguely remember the original was fun, hope this one is too

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate trilogy for me

I believe I have previously mentioned Wordplayer.com, the website run by big-shot Hollywood screenwriters Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott. If you can get through to it (it's a little paranoid about Malaysian IP addresses), it's an invaluable resource, hosting a terrific series of columns on screenwriting as well as an active forum community of very smart folks. Well, when I first found it their shots weren't that big; they'd had credits on a few modestly successful films, but they were mostly struggling through the trenches like any other working screenwriter. And then we heard that their new movie was coming out, based on a Disneyland ride, which both Rossio and Elliott claimed was the best experience they'd ever had working on a film. For the first time in their careers, the final film accurately represented the script and story that they'd painstakingly crafted (a rare occurrence in Hollywood), and thus they were prouder of it than anything they'd ever done. This, above all, was what had me looking forward to the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie - and from then on, film history was made.


Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
My rating:




I watched this twice in cinemas, but my recent DVD rewatch of it was my first viewing since it first came out. I remember loving it, and I agree when most people say it's the best of the three. But I think I'm only now realizing how great it is. This movie is packed to the gills with entertainment; every third line of dialogue is either a joke, plot-related exposition, a plot-related setup for a later payoff, or an allusion to something that won't be made clear until a second viewing. (Or third, or fourth, et cetera.) Often it's two or three of these at once. And it's also a deliciously twisty plot, in which every character is thinking a step ahead of everyone else, trying to exploit the way the central MacGuffin of the Aztec coins work for every angle and loophole they can think of. And it's an action-packed, swashbuckling revival of a genre that hasn't been seen in ages. It's a brilliantly clever film that doesn't require smarts to enjoy - but if you're willing to pay close attention, the rewards are awesome.

And speaking of brilliant, there is of course Captain Jack Sparrow. Johnny Depp's swishy, swaggering, guylinered, seemingly-perpetually drunk, inept-and-ingenious-in-equal-measure pirate has to be one of the most inspired performances of the decade and possibly of all time. But as fun as he was, I enjoyed watching Geoffrey Rush every bit as much; if Sparrow is a postmodern take of pirate-as-rockstar (or rockstar-as-pirate), then Rush's Barbossa is classic movie pirate all the way right down to the "Arr!" (Yes, he actually says "Arr!") Depp and Rush chew so much scenery between them that it's a wonder we have any attention left to pay to anyone else, but there's also Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom to play the requisite straight man (and girl); Knightley fares better than Bloom, who's a little out of his depth. Still, Will Turner the noble romantic hero and his lady love Elizabeth belong in a movie that's as much an homage to classic pirate tropes as it is a modern update of them.

But there's smart writing, terrific performances, and also great action scenes, orchestrated in all their old-fashioned swashbuckling glory by Gore Verbinski. His previous movie was the remake of The Ring, the only good Hollywood remake of Asian horror; here he proves equally adept at light-hearted action-adventure. Critics were quick to rave about how Depp's performance "single-handedly" elevated the film, but honestly, they're fulla shit. There's just so much more it has to offer: the awesome undead-pirate effects, the genuine affection for the old-fashioned pirate movie genre, the pitch-perfect blend of action and comedy, and most of all Rossio's and Elliott's terrific screenplay. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a summer blockbuster need not be dumb and hollow, and that it can in fact be a genuinely great film if it's not. Even if it's based on a theme park ride.


Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
My rating:




After enjoying The Curse of the Black Pearl so much, I was of course hugely anticipating its sequel. And I pretty much agree with everyone that it's not as good as its predecessor, and that its plot got too confusing. Complex plotting was one of Black Pearl's great strengths, but Rossio and Elliott go overboard with it here, giving every character their own agenda and having them work at cross-purposes with everyone else in pursuit of not one, but three Macguffins (the key to Davy Jones' chest, the chest itself, and the Letters of Marque). I remember the exact moment the plot lost me: when Elizabeth, whose arrest and death sentence drove Will's quest to enlist Jack's help in freeing her, escaped on her own - no, not escaped, but persuaded Beckett to let her go. I don't know what threat Beckett posed anymore after that. I don't know why she and Will couldn't just skedaddle off into the Blue, happily ever after.

Yet as you can probably tell from my rating, I still enjoyed it. The cannibal island sequence is hilarious Looney Tunes-style slapstick (although the whole segment is completely irrelevant to the plot); the Flying Dutchman is awesomely cool (although its fish-mutated crew seem like a knockoff of Black Pearl's skeletal pirates, with less personality); Davy Jones is one of the most seamless CGI characters ever created (although I thought he should've been scarier, instead of another snarky villain-type like Barbossa was); the Kraken was absolutely terrifying (although I don't know why Davy Jones needs it if he can just teleport across the sea, as shown); and I totally loved the three-way swordfight on the giant wheel (unconditionally!). As you can tell, I'm making lots of excuses for this movie's weaknesses. I can't help it. It is relentless at trying to entertain you, and that's an impressive thing.

But it doesn't succeed at it as well as Black Pearl does, with the former film's seemingly-effortless wit, ingenuity and panache. It tries too hard with visual spectacle and constant callbacks to Black Pearl's dialogue that aren't as funny the second time. Clearly, the less-than-ideal circumstances under which it was made are to blame: Dead Man's Chest and At World's End were filmed back-to-back, on a rushed schedule while the scripts were still being written (and re-re-re-written). Verbinski thought up many of the ideas and setpieces and gave Rossio and Elliott the task of somehow weaving them all together into a (somewhat) coherent story. Depp himself "contributed" to the writing, and who's gonna say no to the superstar actor who "single-handedly" made the first movie a success? With so many cooks brewing this broth, it's a wonder the final product still turned out this good - and that's because each of these cooks are damn good filmmakers in their own right.


Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
My rating:




I will swear up and down that the third Pirates of the Caribbean film was great, a return to form, and better than the second if still not at the level of the first. But I doubt many people will agree. It's the lowest-rated of the series on RottenTomatoes, and while Dead Man's Chest's reviews were ambivalent, this one's were positively scathing. But they were wrong. ('Cos only my opinion is right and true and 100% objective, it is.) Sure, the over-complicated plot continues here. Sure, Chow Yun-Fat was sadly underused. Sure, the off-screen disposal of the Kraken, one of the coolest parts of the last film, is proof positive that the filmmakers (it's no longer fair just to finger Rossio and Elliott for the storyline) wrote themselves into a corner. Sure, it probably goes on a little too long. But what every film critic missed is that this film's aim is to create a living, breathing mythology. And it is an utterly cool mythology.

These movies do not take place in the real world. Port Royal and Tortuga were real places, and the East India Trading Company a real thing, but that's as far as its nods to reality get. This is a world in which there's a goddess of the sea, and she was wooed and loved by the captain of the Flying Dutchman, the ship charged with ferrying the souls of those who died at sea to the afterlife. But a goddess does not love as a mortal does, and the captain, feeling betrayed, in turn betrayed her to a Brethren of pirates who bound her in human form so that they may possess mastery of the oceans. And thus the captain and her crew abandoned their Charonic duty, and grew monstrous in both form and spirit. The pirates meanwhile, composed of Pirate Lords and a Pirate King, traded those titles amongst each other via treachery and back-stabbing, for such is the nature of pirates; they detest authority, but they like titles. Until somehow, one Captain Jack Sparrow - who, when we first saw him, barely even has a ship to command - became a Pirate Lord, as did one Hector Barbossa - who, when we first saw him, was an undead walking skeleton.

And by the movie's end, a Pirate King has once again been appointed - and she is the wife of the Flying Dutchman's new captain, who has returned its crew to its sacred mission, and who tragically can only meet his beloved for one day every ten years. And the sea goddess is once again free, and what this portends for those who ply the oceans, no one knows - but somewhere in her dark clutches is the soul of the lover who betrayed her, bound to the cruelest punishments a goddess can devise. This. Is. All. Cool. How could anyone not think so? It's worldbuilding and mythmaking at its most captivating, the kind of setting that people would dream of either living and adventuring in, or of creating new stories in - perhaps achieving the former with the latter. This is a rare and precious accomplishment, maybe even unprecedented in film. And it does this while still working its butt off to entertain; Jack Sparrow's personal hell in Davy Jones' Locker, the boat-tipping scene, Keith Richards' cameo, the ship-to-ship duel in the maelstrom, the wedding-in-the-heat-of-battle. It's criminal how all of this went unappreciated. Criminal, I says.

-----

So yeah, I really like this franchise, even the two sequels that no one else likes. The vast majority of opinions, professional and amateur, tend to entirely miss the point about what these movies are going for - especially those who think it's all about Jack Sparrow. I don't expect everyone to like them as much as I do, but lazy reviews are lazy. I'll be the first to admit they're not perfect either, and I certainly won't rush to defend their many flaws. Yet I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has made its mark on film history. Dead Man's Chest made over $1 billion worldwide and is the 4th highest-grossing movie of all time - but even that aside, I believe there'll come a time when the empty-headed snarks of "typical dumb summer CGI wankfest" will fade into obscurity and a critical re-evaluation will bring their accomplishments to light. And I'm already looking forward to the fourth installment, and getting my knives out for the critics who have already savaged it. I do appreciate Pirates of the Caribbean on a deeper level than them - and yes, that does make me a better person. So there.