A Dangerous Method

The only reason I wanted to see A Dangerous Method is because it was made by David Cronenberg.  I don't know or care much about psychology.  I am liking Michael Fassbender's work so far, but Viggo Mortensen is pretty hit-and-miss for me and Keira Knightley generally stars in the film adaptations of books I never wanted to read.  Cronenberg, though, is always (in my experience) interesting as a filmmaker, at the very least.  I was a little hesitant to see A Dangerous Method, though.  I just had difficulty seeing the promise of a Cronenberg movie that was fenced in by actual historical figures and facts.  That practically guarantees a lack of head explosions, and what's the fun in that?

A Dangerous Method centers around Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), one of the first and foremost trailblazers in psychoanalysis.  Young, married, and Fassbendery, Dr. Jung is at the cutting edge of his profession, back when Freud's ideas were still new and radical.  Jung took a particular interest in his patient Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley).  When she came to him, Sabina was defiant, afraid, and spastic.

And, apparently, born the same way as Uruk-Hai

In other words, she was a perfect test subject for psychoanalysis.  Jung is able to treat Sabina so that she no longer covers herself in feces and throws unreasonable tantrums.  Through the course of treatment, Jung learns quite a bit about Sabina; he learns that she is extremely intelligent, understands psychoanalysis, and has a spanking fetish.  While it may be hasty to call her "cured"...

Fingernail biting: the final obstacle to sanity

...Jung decided that Sabina was capable of living a normal life and encourages her to study to become a doctor, like him.  Around this time, Jung is invited to a meeting of the foremost minds in psychoanalysis, where he meets his idol, Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen).  Freud recognizes Carl's brilliance and takes Jung under his wing, as his heir apparent.  Jung has his doubts about the absolute nature of Freud's theories --- is everything about sex? --- but keeps those thoughts to himself.

Like Freud's ridiculous "Beard Theory."  Pah!  Mustaches are the future!

As Jung's fame grows, so does Sabina's insight.  As a successful patient as well as a successful psychoanalyst, her thoughts are often clever and unique.  As she and Jung develop their professional relationship, however, it becomes apparent that Sabina is very attracted to Jung.  Obviously, this is a case of transference.  But what's a little transference between friends?

Spanky, spanky!

Their romantic relationship complicates things.  On a personal level, Jung has a wife whom he feels morally responsible for (and who is extremely wealthy), even if he does not share a deep connection with her.  He is magnetically attracted to Sabina, physically and intellectually, but he does not want to give her the love child she craves.  On a professional level, Sabina could easily make their relationship public knowledge and discredit Jung with the rest of Freud's faithful.  Jung's increasingly vocal criticisms of Freud's refusal to change his theories even a little also threatens his status as Freud's heir apparent.  Oh, Carl Jung --- you so crazy!

Relax --- it's just an expression

The acting in A Dangerous Method is quite good.  Viggo Mortensen, in particular, was both charming and compelling as Sigmund Freud.  Michael Fassbender gave an interesting performance as a cold, calculating man that could not deny his passion.  Keira Knightley, when she wasn't doing an impression of a mentally ill person, was good as a needy, manipulative temptress.

"I want you to word associate me so hard...!"

In the beginning of the film, though, Knightley's craziness was unintentionally funny.  I'm sure she did her research, and that Sabina Spielrein really did have some crazy spastic movements.  I'm just not 100% certain that the best way to convey that illness is jutting out your jaw, like it's trying to escape your face.  I will say that this is the best Tasmanian Devil impression I have seen on the big screen.  It was a complex role, and she nailed the dramatic parts --- she just seemed silly when she played "crazy."  Vincent Cassel was good as the intelligent (but unrepentantly lusty) Dr. Otto Gross, who provides one of the explanations for the film's title.  Cassel is at his best when he is doing dirty, dirty, things, and that's what Gross was all about.

Dr. Gross, with his 1 o'clock appointment

The only other cast member worth mentioning is Sarah Gadon, who played Mrs. Jung.  Hers was a small part, but she conveyed the repressed emotions of her character well.

David Cronenberg's direction in A Dangerous Method was not as impressive as the acting.  I genuinely liked how well he developed the characters and how the actors were directed.  However, it is up to the director to take that and make it into something compelling, if not simply entertaining.  Simply put, this is a dull movie.  The most dramatic moments come when characters are reading letters.  It is so boring, in fact, that the novelty of Fassbender and Knightley's bondage and spanking scenes barely breaks the monotony.  For the record, I have no problem (in theory) with a slow-paced film.

Dramatic pause and...now sip your tea

I do not, however, have much tolerance for being bored.  It is not the pacing that is at fault, though.  The larger problem of A Dangerous Method is the story focus.  The conflict between Jung and Freud was interesting, as was the forbidden romance of Carl and Sabina.  Unfortunately, this script split the story's focus between those two plots.  Either one could have made for a compelling film, but there isn't room for both to be represented equally.  Instead of a compelling drama about either relationship, we get what amounts to a Carl Jung biopic.  Biopics are not my favorite film genre, but if anyone can spice up the traditionally predictable biopic structure, it would be David Cronenberg.  He likes to make films with cool characters and unusual imagery, and that is exactly what is needed for an interesting biopic.  Instead, we get a haggard-looking Keira Knightley in an ill-fitting bodice.

Knightley is a size zero, so that makes her clothes...size -2?

While I believe that Michael Fassbender did a very good job as the subtle, reserved Carl Jung, he simply is not very compelling as a main character.  We don't see his actions as interesting or dynamic --- heck, we don't see him taking action.  There are just conversations, followed by letters, followed by reply letters, followed by conversations.  Period piece dramas don't have to be dull, but A Dangerous Method is not a movie I would use to prove that point.  Good acting can only take a movie so far without a plot that makes you care about the characters.

London Boulevard

Let's see what we have here.  London Boulevard is the directorial debut of William Monahan, Academy Award-winning screenwriter of The Departed.  That sounds good.  Of course, he also wrote Edge of Darkness, which included radioactive children, which is less good.  On the other hand, Colin Farrell is in it, and I've really enjoyed him in the last few things I've seen him in (Fright Night and In Bruges), which almost completely makes up for how awful he was at the beginning of his career.  The supporting cast includes the always reliable Ray Winstone, the considerably less consistent David Thewlis, and the adorable Anna Friel.  Keira Knightley plays Farrell's romantic interest, too; while I'm not a big fan, Knightley isn't a bad actress --- she just seems to act in movies I don't want to watch.  When you add all that up, London Boulevard sounds like a pretty solid movie, if not a good one.  And yet, it took a year after its European release for the film to have a limited theatrical run in America.  Is this a misunderstood diamond in the rough, or is this (in the parlance of the UK) just some shite that should have gone direct to DVD? 

After being released from prison, Mitchell (Colin Farrell) is immediately picked up and reintroduced to the shady criminals that got him in trouble in the first place.  Mitchell didn't rat anybody out --- in fact, he's a bit of a legend for being a bad-ass --- so he's not going to get snuffed, but he's tired of that life and wants to move on.  Somehow, Mitchell manages to get a job as a bodyguard for reclusive actress/British tabloid fodder, Charlotte (Keira Knightley).  Charlotte has developed a bit of an anxiety disorder thanks to the constant badgering she has received from the paparazzi; I would say she is paranoid, but they really are out to get her, since the worse she gets, the better their headlines.

She doesn't seem overexposed at all

Taking care of Charlotte is surprisingly rewarding for Mitchell.  Aside from developing friendships that don't revolve around secrecy and being paid --- hold on...okay, his new gig isn't that different from his days as a thug.  Whatever.  Mitchell and Charlotte fall in love, the end.  Or not.  You see, ever since Mitchell got spung from the pokey, local crime boss Rob Gant (Ray Winstone) has been pestering Mitchell to flex some of that infamous bad-assery on his behalf.  Mitchell has refused politely and less politely, but Gant isn't the sort who takes "no" for an answer.  So who will come out on top in the end, gangster Mitchell or reformed Mitchell?

None of the acting in London Boulevard was too bad, but the leads weren't especially impressive.  Colin Farrell did about as much with the role as the script would allow, but the story relies heavily on him being totally bad-ass, and we don't see a whole lot of that.  Keira Knightley was fine as the strung-out celebrity, but her role was surprisingly small, given the initial movie trailer.

Rumor is Keira gained 1.5 lbs to play this role; that rumor may be exaggerated

While I didn't care for the individual performances by Farrell or Knightley, they did show some chemistry together, mostly due to Farrell being understated.  Luckily, the lack of overwhelming charm and charisma from the two headlining stars is more than made up by two stellar supporting performances.  David Thewlis played a habitually stoned manager/hanger-on of Charlotte, and he was great.  What I liked about him was how well he played up the nonchalance of a habitual drug user, without being over-the-top at all. 

This is easily the best work I've seen from Thewlis, although considering his non-Harry Potter career, that's not saying much.  Ray Winstone is great at playing tough guys, and this role was right in his wheelhouse (sorry, I've been playing a lot of MLB12: The Show).  Loud, violent, and scary: that's all you need to know about his performance here.  There are a lot of recognizable faces in the rest of the cast, but the only one who stood out was Ben Chaplin as a sniveling and stupid crook; it wasn't a great part, but Chaplin was suitably unsympathetic.  Stephen Graham and Eddie Marsan were both underutilized in small parts.  Anna Friel was almost completely unnecessary in what could have been a fun bit part, but just felt out of place in London Boulevard.

As William Monahan's first directorial feature, London Boulevard does a decent amount of things right.  The best scenes in the movie --- basically any time Farrell shares the screen with Thewlis or Winstone --- are snappy, well-edited and pretty awesome.  The violence is also fairly raw and abrasive (in a good way).

"I'm an artist at my chosen craft"

And yet, London Boulevard is a huge mess.  The first thing you'll notice is the variety and thickness of the British accents in the film; I enjoy the Brits, but even I had a hard time figuring out what was being said at times.  Worse, Monahan's adapted screenplay is all over the place.  The trailer makes this movie look pretty promising.  A tough guy trying to get out of the criminal life and protect his new life with the woman he loves.  Nothing wrong with that, at the very least, and it has the potential for greatness.  But here's the thing: this movie really isn't about that.  It's more of an odyssey for Mitchell as he adjusts to non-criminal life.  The subplot featuring his sister was absolutely useless.  The extended subplot featuring Mitchell's homeless buddy would have been useless, if not for the cheap shot it provides at the end of the film.  But what is worse, a useless subplot, or a seemingly unimportant part of the movie coming back at the very, very end and suddenly being improbably important?  And then there is the bit about the crooked parole officer, and the technical owner of a certain house...there's just a lot going on, but not in a fast-paced crime caper kind of way.  Chunks of this movie work, but they don't actually connect to each other in a narrative or thematic fashion.

That disconnect is really at the core of what keeps London Boulevard from working.  There are some good bits (the familiar overarching plot, the snappy banter in key scenes), but the pacing of the film as a whole is awful.  The story gets sidetracked by subplots with little to no payoff, Mitchell is attached to certain characters for reasons the viewer never really understands, and the core of the story --- Mitchell and Charlotte falling in love --- is rushed and left mostly unexplored and unexplained.

That's enough of that!

How do you screw up a British gangster movie with so much talent in the film?  By not focusing on the "gangster" part and not letting the talent interact with each other, I suppose.  I was already sorely disappointed in the film when it suddenly sealed the deal and earned my ire. 

I'd be pissed, too, if I starred in this

SPOILER ALERT: Mitch has just gone out of his way to keep himself and Charlotte safe, and he's leaving her house to get on a plane and meet up with her.  And then he gets the shit stabbed out of him.  Not by any of the famous actors in the cast, or even someone with a speaking part up to this point, but by a kid.  You see, Mitch gave his homeless buddy a knife to protect himself, the homeless guy gets beaten to death, and word on the street is that a kid did the deed; Mitch tracked the kid down and was seconds away from murdering him, but he stopped, presumably because he made a choice to change.  And then that stupid kid stabs him to death with his own knife, out of nowhere.  That...that is just awful.  It may not be the worst ending I've seen, but it is, at the very least, complete bullshit.  If the movie had been good up to that point, I would have been seriously upset, so at least London Boulevard made sure you had lost interest before doing something so stupid. 

For the record, that is one star each for David Thewlis and Ray Winstone.  The rest of this movie can curl up and die, for all I care.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

I assume that, when Disney head Michael Eisner says his prayers before bedtime every night, he ends with "...and God bless Johnny Depp."  This movie should have been a huge, $150 million flop, but Depp's bizarre performance fueled it to ridiculous box office numbers and two sequels (so far).  It's based on an amusement park ride, a genre of movie that is barely existent for a reason; nobody wants to see Tilt-a-Whirl: The Movie.  Beyond all probability and expectations, though, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was an unqualified success, grossing over $650 million worldwide.  But was it any good?

Despite the title, the Black Pearl had no curse.  The subtitle should have been PotC: Montezuma's Revenge, but I can see some negative connotations with that.  They could have at least used PotC: Screw You, Aztec Gold!  Whatever.  The main story of this film is unusual, because it doesn't necessarily require these particular lead characters.  I'll explain.  The main plot is about the crew of the pirate ship, the Black Pearl.  These men discovered a famous cache of Aztec gold, but learned too late that the gold was cursed; after they spent it, they lived as supernatural creatures, unable to feel pain or joy, only hunger.  The only way to remove the curse is to gather all their spent gold from around the globe and return it to its resting place, with the blood of everyone that took the gold.  Unfortunately, pirates aren't very trustworthy, so one of the crew mailed his son a gold piece (just before the others killed him), so the crew could never know peace.  And that's just back story!  The movie hasn't even started yet! 

The son, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) grows up to be a blacksmith in Port Royal, Jamaica.  As a child, he thought he lost the cursed gold piece, but it was actually found by his dream woman, Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley).  I don't know why she held on to the piece for over a decade, but she did.  On the day she rediscovers the gold piece, she manages to fall in the ocean.  Clumsy wench.  Upon hitting the water, a pulse is sent out across the seas; apparently, the gold calls to the cursed pirates.  Unaware of this, Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), who has no ship or crew, rescues Elizabeth from drowning.  As a show of thanks on behalf of the Port Royal navy, Sparrow is arrested for piracy by Commodore Norrington (Jack Davenport).  Well, he is eventually arrested by Norrington.  In the meantime, Sparrow meets Turner, and they have a swordfight where the audience realizes that Will Turner is a boring person: "...and I practice [swordplay]...three hours a day...so if I meet a pirate...I can kill him!"  Will, that is a huge investment of time for a relatively unlikely goal.  Of course, he did meet a pirate, so I guess it was all worthwhile.  While Sparrow is in jail, Port Royal gets attacked by marauding pirates, who are after Elizabeth's gold piece.  Thinking that they mean to use her as a ransom object (her dad is the Governor of Port Royal), Elizabeth lies and tells the pirates that her last name is Turner.  Well, they're looking for a Turner with the gold piece to remove the curse, so they take her with them.  From there, Will frees Sparrow to rescue Elizabeth, they recruit their own crew of crazy pirates, and try to avoid being caught by Commodore Norrington or killed by the crew of the Black Pearl.

You see?  With that back story in place, it doesn't really matter who else is in the movie, as long as the Black Pearl's men find the last gold piece.  Yes, Will Turner's blood is needed to remove the curse, but Elizabeth and Jack Sparrow could have easily been somewhere else and the pirates would have still gone after Turner and the gold.  In my mind, that is the A plot, with Jack Sparrow's attempts to regain ownership of the Pearl as the B plot and Will and Elizabeth's love story as the C plot.  You wouldn't think it, but that's just how it is.

That unconventional plot structure combines with a novel genre mashing to make this a pretty unique film.  Pirate films have been pretty terrible for the last, oh, 70 years or so.  I can only think of one good movie in my lifetime with a pirate in it (The Princess Bride), and there was little to no piracy in that film.  To salvage that, the screenwriters (and there were a lot, so I'm not sure who came up with this idea) decided to make this a supernatural pirate movie.  Sure, you throw in a few skeletal undead pirates, and the whole movie starts to come together.  Honestly, the traditional "pirate" scenes, particularly the sword fighting scenes, are among the film's more ridiculous moments and are not particularly exciting.  Still, the use of humor and the good character work bolster the supernatural pirate premise enough to overcome those shortcomings.

Performance-wise, most of the cast is playing it pretty simple.  Orlando Bloom actually has to play it simple, since he has trouble expressing more than mild confusion in any movie.  Still, he plays the straightforward swashbuckling role well enough and works even better as a straight man for Johnny Depp.  Keira Knightley gets to practice her sassmouth in this film, making her character surprisingly feminist, given the story's setting.  Geoffrey Rush is great as the evil Captain Barbossa; it's not a complex character, but Rush clearly has a blast in the role and that makes him fun to watch.  Also worth noting is Kevin McNally as Jack Sparrow's friend, Gibbs.  He's not fantastic, but he blends comedy and piracy well.  The rest of the cast is less impressive, but nobody is terrible.  Jonathan Pryce and Jack Davenport are fine as the primary supporting non-pirates.  Lee Arenberg started out as a pretty menacing figure in his first scene, but he and Mackenzie Crook quickly became the comedy relief for the pirate scenes.  Zoe Saldana has a bit role, but she's still moderately annoying as the film's only female boat captain.

With those actors and characters, this would still be a pleasant movie, but it is Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow that makes all the difference.  A bizarre combination of sleazy femininity, outright drunkenness, and Keith Richards mannerisms, Jack Sparrow was entirely created by Depp.  How he got that past Disney's people, I don't know.  While Depp is the lead actor in the film, he functions as a supporting character.   He doesn't really spark the action, but reacts to situations.  That keeps the character fresh and appealing throughout; too much Jack Sparrow can be overwhelming, as the sequels can attest to.  When I first saw this movie, I laughed at almost everything Depp did on screen.  He wasn't cracking jokes, but his character is very busy; he is constantly constantly changing his expression, touching things, and swaying in the wind. While I wouldn't say this is Depp's best performance, I believe it is certainly his most memorable character and, as such, his Oscar nomination for this role was well deserved.

Depp delivers almost all the best lines in the movie, which helps his character's appeal.  It really doesn't get any better or simpler than Sparrow's reaction to when Will accuses him of cheating in their sword fight: "Uh, pirate."  While there are a lot of clever lines ("Clearly, you've never been to Singapore" is another), there are some pretty terrible script moments, too.  I understand that Elizabeth is all gung-ho and anti-damsel-in-distress, but the scene where Keira Knightley is having trouble fitting into a corset because it's too tight...?  That's some mighty fine acting, because I'm pretty sure she is sixty pounds soaking wet.  And Keira gets saddled with a lot of bad dialogue, too.  Her worst line of dialogue is also her last: "[Will Turner]'s not a blacksmith...he's a pirate!"  And everyone shakes their head and smiles, because they realize that Elizabeth is a very stupid girl.

The Curse of the Black Pearl turned out to be a pretty fun movie.  Yes, it's too long and director Gore Verbinski spends too much time on the supporting cast, but it manages to make pirate movies entertaining again.  Johnny Depp deserves most of the credit for that, but Geoffrey Rush does a great job as Depp's counterpart.  The story would be stronger if there was more linking these characters than serendipity, but it doesn't require much suspension of disbelief (until the sequels).  No, it's certainly not a flawless film, but what more do you want from a movie based on an amusement park ride?