Red Dawn (A-)

Despite its considerable flaws, Red Dawn is an incredibly entertaining, satisfyingly patriotic action flick that perfectly captures the spirit of the original.

Red Dawn (2012) is a remake of Red Dawn (1984). The 1984 version told the story of a group of high schoolers and college kids who form a band of guerilla warriors after the Soviets invade the United States. The 2012 version takes place in modern times, so a Soviet invasion wasn’t going to cut it. The new bad guys: North Korea. When the movie was shot it was China, but they digitally changed the flags in post-production so as to make the foes Korean. Either way, it is kind of dumb: China’s entire economy is built around trading with the US, and North Korea lacks the manpower or weapons for a full scale invasion. However, showcasing a series of violent terrorist attacks orchestrated by people on the other side of the world wouldn’t have the same effect as the shot of commie comandoes parachuting from the sky. In order to explain the scenario, the movie comes up with a semi-plausible explanation wherein North Korea--using Chinese and Russian technology--is able to shut down every electronic device in the US, thus leaving it vulnerable to attack. Less clearly explained is how the nation of under 25 million is able to rally an army that can launch a long-term occupation of a nation of over 311 million. However, if you are still considering watching the movie after seeing the trailer then you know you can get over this fact.

With a concept that is kind of dumb, it would be very easy for the movie to get too campy and too self-referential. Instead, it takes itself deadly seriously. This is certain to turn off many, but it is most definitely the best choice. The original Red Dawn was a celebration of patriotism and the indefatigable nature of the American spirit even in the terrifying climate of the Cold War. The new movie takes this message to the current age. A full-scale invasion might be implausible, but it is most certainly true that there are vicious armies out there just as hell-bent on destroying the US and everything it stands for as the Soviets were. The message that a group of ordinary, everyday people--kids even--can make a stand for their country and their ideals is just as powerful as always.

Now it is easy to scoff at the above idea, not because one disagrees with it (in broad theory, at least, few Westerners do), but because it seems painfully simple. Honestly, though, it seems that movies struggle to convey it as clearly as Red Dawn does. Even good action films don’t. Take, for example, The Avengers. In terms of acting, visuals, dialogue, and budget Avengers is the superior to Dawn, and its message is pretty much the same: That the idea of a pure, larger-than-life American hero is still able to inspire the nation in turbulent times. However, Avengers’ many subplots about corrupt government officials and conflicted and troubled super-soldiers along with the inherent barrier put between the audience and the story by having a billionaire cyborg super-hero as the protagonist manages to dilute this message to the point where it seems tacked-on; adding self-referential jokes greatly magnifies this effect. Despite its lower budget and more obvious flaws, I found the comically earnest and down-to-Earth style of Red Dawn ultimately more satisfying than the super-human thrills of Avengers.

Red Dawn does explore some more complicated war-time scenarios than its 80s predecessor. American civilians are shown joining the new North Korean police force in order to ease the pain of transition, and end up becoming targets of the heroes. This plot thread is soon dropped by making these so-called “traitors” so cowardly that no one really cares of their fate, but the notion that an underground resistance movement would include killing one’s own people adds an extra dimension to the whole affair. The high schoolers band of rebels, named the Wolverines, use the same strategy as in the original--blowing up North Korean headquarters even if it costs them their life--but I think the idea of car IEDs and suicide bombings being implemented by the good guys seems much more sinister now than in the 80s, and thus adds to the impact that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty in order to win a war.

A major flaw in Red Dawn is that the dialogue between the Wolverines seems very staged and uninvolving. This is not the fault of the cast (though lead actor Josh Peck doesn’t help matters); it is due to the fact that while writers Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore did a great job on the overall story, they could not write any convincing character interaction, and the newbie director was unable to get the cast to improvise.
The other big problem in Dawn cannot in anyway be blamed on the filmmakers. The picture still had a few days left in filming (enough for six minutes worth of the movie) when the distributor--MGM--went bankrupt; the story is complete and there are no plot holes, but the fact that there are missing scenes does show.

These flaws are significant, but not enough to make one skip the film. The action is compelling and the slight change in the ending from the original is undoubtedly an improvement. Another good part is the work of Chris Hemsworth, who actually made this movie before he achieved stardom in Thor. His charisma and charm bring a lot to the movie; he is definitely a grade above your typical action star.
Red Dawn has its problems, but that doesn’t keep it from being an immensely entertaining and satisfying action movie.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (C)

With the pretty visuals, surprisingly funny moments, and so many characters you barely notice that nothing happens in the whole movie. Nothing can excuse that anti-climactic ending, though.

When we last saw the Twilight Universe, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) had chosen the vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) over the werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) and had nearly died giving birth to a half-human/half-vampire child named Renesme (MacKenzie Foy), but had been revived as a vampire. Breaking Dawn Part 2 begins with Bella’s first hunt. For those unaware, Edward and his family are rare “vegetarian vampires” who through incredible restraint practiced for decades have been able to live off the blood of animals rather than that of humans. Bella starts out stalking a deer, but her superhuman sense of smell alerts her to a mildly injured mountain climber nearby. Bella is consumed with the thirst for blood and charges off to feast on the unfortunate adventurer. Edward runs after her, grabs her arm, and says “don’t do it--you can control yourself.” Bella apologizes and goes and eats a puma instead. One scene later, Edward’s mother remarks that since some vampires have additional super-powers (Edward, for example, can read minds), Bella must have the ability to exercise great self-control and it is thus quite easy for her to avoid killing humans. And that plot thread, which had been built up for five two-hour movies, is solved.

For the remainder of the movie, Emmy-winner Melissa Rosenberg (Dexter) desperately tries to form some semblance of a story. Last year, I wrote that the previously laughable Twilight franchise had produced a true gem with Breaking Dawn Part 1, a movie I put on my top ten list of 2011. Now, we see the negative effects of putting all the best parts of the final Twilight book in one movie and then devoting another to tying up loose ends.
This movie tackles the interesting topic of the Voltury, the royalty of the vampire world that offered Edward membership back in New Moon. Concerned with the growing power of vegetarian vampires and Renesme, which they (falsely) believe is a vampirized child, the Voltury decide to go to the Cullens’ home in Forks, Washington and kill them. This would make for an interesting movie, except for the fact that Stephanie Meyers--who wrote the books--didn’t really spend much time telling it. Rosenberg frequently starts interesting plot-lines and gives an entertaining fight scene, but in the end must avoid telling a satisfying ending since she has to be faithful to the source material. My guess is that both Meyer and Twilight distributor Summit want to save the inevitable conflict between the Voltury and the Cullens for a Renesme franchise, which would be fine except for the fact that it was the plotline advertised for this movie.

The stories of Bella, Jacob, and Edward all seem told, so little time is devoted to character development for them (probably a good thing, since none of those characters were remotely interesting). Instead, the trio takes a backseat to about twenty vampires new to the franchise (not an exaggeration). These new bloodsuckers have allied with the Cullens against the Voltury for various reasons. The most interesting of these are Casey Labow’s Kate, who can fire blasts of electricity from her palms, and Lee Pace’s Garret, a non-vegetarian vampire who fought valiantly for the Americans in the War of 1812. Of course, there are also some stupid characters that shouldn’t be included, first and foremost being Patrick Brennan’s Irish vampire Liam, who dressed like a leprechaun. I was most intrigued by how the Egyptian clan of vampires hides the universal vampire trait of sparkling in the sunlight in their sunny homeland (the past four movies insist that by living in the perpetually cloudy Washington mountains the Cullens avoid notice).

In this movie, like the others, there is the disturbing element of how unconcerned the Cullens seem to be with the existence of the non-vegetarian vampires, which are effectively super-powered serial killers. Here they actually ally with a bunch of them, but never seem remotely conflicted if perhaps with their extraordinary super-powers and vast knowledge of vampires they should try to stop them. The earlier movies stated that vampires could not battle each other since the Voltury forbade it, but seeing as current circumstances have brought the Voltury and the Cullens to war it seems that should be a non-issue now.
Director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) has done a great job of taking away the dumbest elements from the earlier movies. The acting is better (Stewart has greatly improved since she started the series), the scenes are much quicker and concise, the make-up is exponentially superior, and cinematography (by Pan’s Labyrinth’s Guillermo Navarro) is gorgeous. Condon can’t undo the appearances of everything in the early movies, be he chooses to frequently ignore the effect of sunlight on vampire skin, since Twilight Director Catherine Hardwicke made the sparkling thing look so stupid; he also uses ample speed ramping and slow-motion to hide the cheesiness of the “vampire super-speed” special effect used by Hardwicke.

The best element is Billy Burke (TV’s Revolution) as Charlie, Bella’s police officer father. Burke has always brought incredible depth to his role, and here Rosenberg takes the most amounts of liberties with Meyer’s book in order to give Burke the opportunity to make his scenes both funnier and more in depth. The scene where Jacob reveals his werewolf ability to Charlie could be the most humorous I’ve seen this year, and the moment where Charlie awkwardly attends a Christmas party where every other attendee is aware of the vampire conspiracy (Bella refuses to tell him) is one of the series’ most heart-felt. He can’t save the movie, though.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 is watchable, but the lack of a plot makes it a bit of a letdown.

End of Watch (A-)

The ability of End of Watch to take what is essentially a simple story and make it such an emotional tribute to the police force lies with the engaging, genuine relationship between its central characters.

David Ayer writes two kind of movies: fast-paced action-comedies like The Fast and the Furious (the original) and dark, suspenseful cop dramas like Training Day. End of Watch is definitely one in the latter category. From the opening car chase, shot in near-total silence, the movie is gripping and burns with intensity. The story simply follows two Los Angeles police officers’ daily battles, both in the crime-ridden streets and their personal lives. The film is building up to a showdown with a brutal, new drug cartel that treats LA like territory to be conquered and the police like an opposing army; however, there is no one incident that triggers the feud, no personal connection between the gangsters and cops, and not even one character who can be deemed the head bad guy. This isn’t so much a cops-and-robbers adventure than a look at the ground troops in a war.

Ayer is less experienced as a director than as a writer, but it is his work on set that really shows. The two protagonists are played Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena, and Ayer makes every moment between the two so genuine that it is impossible not to care. The credit should also be given to the stars. Both are recognizable actors with several blockbusters to their names as well as some critically lauded work (Gyllenhaal got an Oscar nomination for Brokeback Mountain and Pena had juicy roles in World Trade Center and Crash), but neither are really considered Hollywood A-list. In End of Watch, they prove themselves as never before.

Many have criticized Ayer’s choice to shoot the movie in found footage format, something generally reserved for micro-budget horror fare like Paranormal Activity. I think it was a good choice--this is an intensely personal film and one that must truly absorb the audience, and by actually having the characters be the ones operating the camera, it does just that. However, there are moments where Ayer’s inexperience with the style shows: I am fairly certain that he knows the logistics of why cameras are placed where they are when they are and whether someone is holding them, but there are scenes where the audience member will become distracted trying to figure it out. These scenes are probably most jarring in the conversations between Pena and Gyllenhaal’s characters in the squad car, which are captured from possibly four different angles (how many cameras can these guys afford, and how much time did they spend setting them up in strategic locations?). The scenes where it is most comical are where the gangsters are shooting the action. Why would a career criminal take a camera to video-tape all his illegal activity? Isn’t it a lot of work holding a camera in one hand and positioning it at your target while you fire a gun with the other hand (at least the cops have theirs clipped to their pockets like pen protectors)? And why would Mexican gangsters who’s first language is obviously Spanish insist on speaking English with each other?
In the end, though, these are only minor complaints. The movie is riveting from beginning to end, and it is impossible not to get choked up at that final scene.
End of Watch is a powerful tribute to the police who risk their lives every day to keep our cities safe.

Goon (A)

DVD Review

FYI: This is an absurdly long movie review. Whether you are reading this on my blog or on Screened, please know that my other reviews are shorter.
Crafting a comedy is a very difficult thing to do. If the filmmakers truly go for every joke and try to make every moment laugh-out-loud funny, the movie ends up empty and soulless. If the filmmakers want to actually tell a meaningful story, they generally end up interrupting the humor and thus creating a tonally off-putting story (on average, would you say that the first half or second half of a comedy is better?). Goon is an excellent tale that manages to be funny all the time, yet still knows when to skip a joke and go for something truly touching.
Doug (Seann William Scott) is a bar bouncer with little future. He is a nice guy, but he certainly suffers from some learning disabilities, something his parents (Eugene Levy and Ellen David) refuse to admit he has. His life changes when as an audience-member at a non-professional hockey game Doug head-butts a burly, helmeted player senseless after the man walked into the audience and threatened Doug’s heckler friend (Jay Baruchel, who also wrote and produced the picture). Doug is offered a job on a semi-pro team as an enforcer, a player who’s job is to protect star athletes by starting fights with aggressive members of the opposing team. After a promotion, Doug leaves his home in the US to go a cold little corner of Halifax, Canada and beats the snot out of people for a living.

Goon is laugh-out-loud funny practically all the time. Instead of relying on drunken-party shock humor like another recent Scott film--*cough* American Reunion *cough*--we see poignant yet ridiculous looks at the bloodlust that fuels hockey fans (I do not say this condescendingly: I am a hockey fan and I unabashedly admit that it is a sport based on a primal urge to see grown men brawl like animals). One particularly good scene features Doug sliding an opponent’s face across the plexiglass surrounding the arena and leaving a bloody smear, while a small child and her bookish parents cheer and applaud from the other side.
Now, I suppose, would be as good a time as any to warn viewers that Goon is disgustingly violent throughout. Bones are snapped, teeth are shattered, noses are squashed, and the ice is stained with blood; all of which makes sense if you keep in mind that this isn’t a Miracle-style tale of playing hockey, it is a movie about gladiatorial combat on an ice rink. I was at some times genuinely concerned if it was too much of a glorification of something absurdly dangerous; I have decided no since 1) kids don’t dream about becoming enforcers, they dream about becoming star players, 2) the movie is R-rated and people should know what they are getting into and be mature enough not to emulate the stunts, and 3) the movie’s brutality is so forthright that few people would actually be inspired to follow through with it (though likely some will).

Other humorous moments come from the shenanigans of Doug’s dumb, unsportsmanlike teammates; the cliched and yet still entertaining foul-mouthed coach (Kim Coates); and the slutty, adorable love interest (Alison Pill). Every actor has believeable chemistry with every other actor, something that should be credited to both the amazing cast and Director Michael Dowse (Fubar). The best part of it, though, is the story, which is equal parts heartfelt and hilarious.
Jay Baruchael is best known for his acting ability (he starred in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and She’s Out of My League after a minor role in Million Dollar Baby) and Evan Goldberg’s early scriptorial career success with Superbad (which came out in 2007, mind you) has been overshadowed by duds like Pineapple Express and The Green Hornet. It turns out they have way more writing potential than it seemed: Working with Dowse and loosely adapting a memoir from a real-life enforcer, the two have far exceeded expectations on the story/screenplay. Both have amazing understanding of what makes good comedy, enormous restraint to ignore easy jokes, and the courage to trust their actors to convey plot elements that aren’t explicitly stated. What is more impressive, though, is they know how to incorporate a heartfelt, surprisingly powerful story into a Hangover-esque screwball comedy.

The future of Doug’s “stardom” is not glossed over. His years as an enforcer are undoubtedly short-lived and the ability to play real hockey is far out of his league. What Doug does have, though, is a noble desire to help his teammates and a deep respect for the sport. In scenes mixed with both irony and sentimentality, Doug and his fellow players--both on his team and the opponents’--share a deep love of hockey and sense of comradery even though their shouting matches and brawls are unprofessional and, to a certain extent, cheating.
This theme is outlined by two very interesting characters. The first, played by international actor Marc-Andre Gondin (a name that I guarantee you will become better known), is Xavier LaFlamme; a former big league star who has bumped back to the minors after an illegal back-check by a rival enforcer nearly killed him and put him in a downward spiral of erratic behavior. While getting to play in the semi-pros is the most successful moment of Doug’s life, it is a humiliating put-down for Xavier. Interestingly, it is Xavier who is jealous of Doug; LaFlamme is disgusted by Glatt’s stupidity and doubts the sincerity of his adherence to the sport. As an enforcer, Doug’s job primary job is to protect Xavier from injuries like he suffered in the majors; tragically the highlight of his career--and probably his life--will be if he manages to keep LaFlamme safe and confident enough to score goals and become a star again.

The other noteworthy character--and one of the year’s best--is Ross “The Boss” Rhea. The veteran enforcer (played perfectly by Liev Schreiber) who caused Xavier’s career-ruining injury, Ross has left the majors and is about to retire, but plans to go out with a bang. Doug plays on another team from Ross, but spends nights analyzing Ross’s best performances in order to emulate them (and, yes, all of his “best performances” were fights). Ross is a barbarian who has ended countless careers--his first scene, in a crowded press conference, is a laughably phony apology for an illegal move that broke a player’s back--but he isn’t all that bad a person. The movie is building up to the inevitable battle between Ross and Doug, but from the get-go Ross sees the puppy-dog sweet Doug and is instantly concerned that his opponent doesn’t get that an enforcer’s career is brutal and short. In the movie’s best moment, Ross tells Doug that it is likely that when they finally play each other Ross will hurt Doug so badly that he will sustain permanent injuries, and is touched when he realizes that Doug does understand this, but is so passionate about the team that gave him glory that he is willing to literally risk his life in order to take them to the championships.
Simultaneously heartwarming, hilarious, and horrifically violent, Goon is one of the best comedies of recent years.

Being Flynn (A+)

DVD REVIEW

A dark, powerful, and ultimately uplifting drama, Being Flynn is one of those truly great pictures.
Writer/director Paul Weitz’s last work was Little Fockers, which would make you think he is a bad filmmaker. This is not true—he wrote Antz and was both writer and director on the excellent About a Boy. Sure, there are some “only good; not great” entries on his imdb page (Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant), and some shockingly awful ones (Nutty Professor II: The Klumps), but he is undoubtedly one of the greatest movie-makers around. He just isn’t a very reliable one.

Being Flynn is not, as some sources claim, a comedy. It is actually very dark. The plot centers on Nick Flynn, a depressed young man dealing with his mother’s suicide by snorting cocaine and working in a homeless shelter (two activities which don’t usually coincide). Nick’s world is rocked when his father, Jonathan, shows up needing a room. Jonathan is, like Nick, a writer; he considers himself as one of the three greatest America has ever produced (the other two being Mark Twain and JD Salinger). Unfortunately, he has never had anything published, was evicted from his house for attacking his neighbor with a cudgel, and lost his job as a cab driver after drunkenly crashing his vehicle. Nick looks at Jonathan and sees where he will end up, and he hates him for it.
One of the best things about the story is that neither man is softened up to be more likeable. Jonathan remains belligerent and delusional; his misfortune is definitely of his own doing. Nick’s hostility towards him is surprisingly cruel, and the son is destroying his life in just the same way as his father. Nick knows it, too, but he is powerless to stop it.

The screenplay is a heavily fictionalized account of a memoir by a real Nick Flynn, and Nick is the most important character in the story. Jonathan isn’t a supporting character, though. Much of the movie centers around his journey, descending the social ladder from low to rock-bottom; all the time he insists he is a genius and has not done anything wrong. A particularly heart-rending moment is where Jonathan, recently evicted, sits in spends the night in a diner drinking coffee and flirting with the waitress; a homeless man walks in and the staff gives him free coffee but tells him he has to drink it outside. A few months later, a haggard Jonathan goes back to the diner and is hurriedly given a free cup and ushered out.
The supporting cast includes Steve Cirbus, Eddie Rous, and the real Nick Flynn’s girlfriend Lili Taylor as workers in the homeless shelter. Olivia Thirlby plays Nick’s manic pixie dream girl; the movie doesn’t overly romanticize this relationship, instead showing a life Nick could have gotten if he wasn’t so hell-bent on destroying himself. Julianne Moore is excellent as always as Nick’s beleaguered mother.

Nick is played by There Will Be Blood’s Paul Dano, who makes the character more genuine and flawed. The great Robert de Niro plays Jonathan and the film owes much of its power to his heart-rending performance. For anyone who says de Niro is no longer an acting legend, this movie is a testament to how he still carries the weight of making excellent
screenplays into excellent movies.
In the end, the viewers get excellent commentary on how people can and should view their lives; that perhaps life is like an unfinished story to be completed after we depart from it. This theme only works since the movie manages to be so genuine and so heartfelt. We truly care about the characters, but more important than that is how we can relate.
Being Flynn is an incredible, powerful drama and an absolute must-see.

The Expendables 2 (B+)

It is shallow even by action blockbuster standards, but The Expendables 2 is well executed schlock and contagiously fun.

Except for Mickey Rourke, all of the original Expendables—Sylvester Stallone (who also wrote the picture), Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li, Terry Crews, and Rany Couture—return (along with Liam Hemsworth), opening the movie by decimating a Nepale terrorist fort with only hand held weapons and Bad Attitude, a truck coated with makeshift steel plates and a battering ram. The battle is chaotic with shakycam, tons of gore, ridiculously loud noises, and humorous foley effects (the sound of an Expendable punching a foe is louder than the sound of their assault rifles). This silly, action-packed pacing relentlessly continues for the rest of the film. Bruce Willis as a shadowy government figure sends them to retrieve a map locating five tons of plutonium; the mission goes sour when they are ambushed by a band of mercenaries lead by a Jean Claud Van Damme bad guy named Jean Vilain. After Li literally parachutes to China and out of the storyline, the Expendables must team up with Nan Yu, Chuck Norris, and Arnold Schwarzenegger to take down the evil assassins and chaos ensues.

I am purposefully calling each Expendable by their actor’s name because that is what this movie is all about. The characters are written after the actors are signed on and their personalities are taken straight from the personas of the guys who play them. Dolph Lundgren’s Expendable is a gruff thug who went to MIT; Norris’s action hero is a cowboy themed tough guy who is considered a “lone wolf.” Entire scenes are built around working in lines from the stars’ most famous pictures.

The story is thin—very thin. For example, the “character development” amounts to Liam Hemsworth telling a story about being a soldier watching a puppy die and Sylvester Stallone saying he doesn’t like working with girls because he feels responsible when they die (it isn’t even meant to be sexist). Still, this all-action all-the-time approach means there isn’t really a chance to come out with a theme that could really offend someone, a la The A-Team (because of course we went to The A-Team to hear political commentary on the war on terror). And the visuals, character intros, humor, and acting (Stallone did win an Oscar) are a cut above what you see in most blockbusters. (and noticeably superior to the original).

Cantankerous film snobs will complain about the shallow plot and the over-the-top dialogue and visuals. But honestly, did anyone go to The Expendables for good story-telling and gritty war scenes? As a violent, 90-munite in-joke to fans of the 80s and 90s action flicks, this ultimate action ensemble is a dream come true.

Impressive Fan Art by DazTibbles

Overrated/Underpraised: Pirates vs Musketeers

| edit | delete

Nathan Adams of Filmschoolrejects has started a cool new column which pits a film with undeserved love against an unfortunately ignored or ridiculed one. I'm making a similar blog, and by similar I mean the exact same. :)

It has been less than a year since Paul W.S. Anderson’s The Three Musketeers hit theaters, but no one remembers it. However, everyone remembers the original Pirates of the Caribbean. You know what that means: It’s time for some Overrated/Underpraised.

Both of these movies take a period known for swashbucklers and sword fighters and add in extra elements to make a light blockbuster. For the original Pirates movie--Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl--these elements were skeleton pirates and Johnny Depp. Judging from the box office receipts and the critical reviews (and the fact that the series has continued going when every subsequent movie was absolutely terrible), one would think this was a good idea. It sort of is. However,The Three Musketeers had some better ones.

Skeleton pirates are cool, so I won’t bash them. I will instead focus my energy on Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow (sorry: Captain Jack Sparrow). At first, he is entertaining, a gonzo character in a sea of mind-numbingly boring heroes and villains. His introduction of riding a sinking boat into a major English port and tipping his hat to the hanging corpses above a “Pirates be Warned” sign is funny. But if his antics don’t seem to get old on you, they probably should. Jack Sparrow is a pretty terrible human being. He makes his living by stealing. He spent years in a crew with some sadistic terrorists. He “borrows” Zoe Saldana’s boat without permission and then sinks it. He constantly drinks as if being drunk is something cool and attractive. He takes cursed gold pieces that turn him into a skeleton despite knowing it comes at the cost of his soul. He wears way too much eye shadow.

Why should we care--and root for--such a jerk? Should we really admire his drunken, selfish antics? Now I know that we are supposed to believe Jack Sparrow has a good heart, because in the beginning of the movie he reveals his identity as a pirate to save Keira Knightley. But does one selfless act really justify his entire past as a pirate and his entire future as a pirate?

Another problem with the movie is Knightley's character Elizabeth Swan. Keira Knightley has given some great performances--if you haven’t already, please see Last Night--but in the Pirates movies she does a really bad job. The character is a selfish, strident shrew who in addition to being really annoying is completely incapable of doing anything herself. She nearly drowned because her corset was too tight! Kinda sexist.

The Three Musketeers goes with a different strategy. They spice up the old story by making it a heist film with giant airship battles. It is anachronistic and silly, but so much fun. The Three Musketeers has been told dozens of times, but adding the extra element of zeppelins and Ocean’s Eleven-style cons breathes new life into it.

Every scene is just as funny and playful as in Pirates. A highlight is where the young monarchs infuriate the cardinal by making a joke out of an unfair trial over a brawl the musketeers were involved in.

Add onto this is the fact that there is a much clearer theme in Three Musketeers. Even though it takes place in a France torn by a power struggle between a child king and a ruthless cardinal, it ends up being a testament to patriotism and honor. The three musketeers (four if you count the protagonist, played by Logan Lerman) have their flaws, but in the end they are admirable, traditional heroes. Keep in mind, though: This message never interrupts the story’s fast, fun pace.

The Three Musketeers doesn’t just have a better moral, it could likely be a more enjoyable experience than watching Captain Jack & Friends.