Grr. Argh.
Jul. 16th, 2003 06:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annundrielBecause I like to hear myself type I have written a review of both The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Pirates of the Caribbean. I'm pretty proud of some of it. Other parts of it probably make little to no sense.
Gentlemen vs. Pirates
Well, now that I've seen both movies I feel like I can make some sort of judgment about both of them. While I found both movies entertaining, Pirates of the Caribbean was by far the better movie. I don't think anything can change that opinion and, in many ways, I believe it is a fact as well.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is not a bad movie, it just happens to have some flaws that I'm having a hard time ignoring. A lot of these flaws center around the characters and the way they are used to further the somewhat weak plot. In fact, it seems to me that the characters were supposed to be the attraction and the plot was just throw-away so the movie could begin a series.
It doesn't work here though. The characters, as written in the script and presented in the movie, are just as throw-away. They were never developed into characters I really cared about. (For example, the death at the end barely affected me besides "Oops, ____ is dead." *shrug*) Which, I think, is where the movie really went wrong. From what I've read, Alan Moore's graphic novel seems to be more character oriented. Here the characters are introduced and then pushed aside for the action. They were left inconsistent and fairly one-dimensional. There is a scene toward the climax in the movie where the League joins hands like football players before the big game. You are supposed to get the feeling that they have reconciled their differences and are now a real team. Instead the act itself seemed like a half-hearted attempt to show the audience what we should have been able to see ourselves. We had to be shown it instead.
None of this is the fault of the actors. They were all very very good. :)
I found a quote in Creative Screenwriting that pretty much sums up my feelings of disappointment. "[The writers & Fox] brought the characters to the screen, but couldn't bring them to life." Pity. It could have been a great movie. Instead I found it luke warm.
On the other hand, Pirates of the Caribbean was a delightful surprise. Seeing previews early on I wasn't particularly anxious in seeing the movie, but as it's release grew near the trailers for it got better. They intrigued me and that is always a good thing. And I will admit to having a certain fascination with anything to do with tall ships.
The success of the movie, for me, lies in the performances. Disney took a big risk with Johnny Depp. I have never seen him in anything where he didn't do something interesting or different with his character. And I can completely understand the people at Disney being a bit worried about his performance. His Jack Sparrow is perpetually half-drunk and ever so slightly fey. And he completely makes the movie.
The other actors are great as well, particularly Geoffrey Rush. (If they ever make Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire into a movie I think Rush would make a great Mad-Eye Moody.) The cast of pirates was nicely done. They weren't just a bunch of eye patches and wooden legs, they actually had some personality. Which is perhaps one of the things I enjoyed about this movie. The characters were allowed to develop and change.
I have heard people complain about the length of Pirates, and it is a little long at times, but it uses it's time more wisely than the slightly shorter Gentlemen (which felt as though they realized they were nearing the two hour mark and needed to wrap things up quickly). If time had been used better in Gentlemen perhaps I would have liked it more.
So, basically, I liked Gentlemen and I loved Pirates. Give me swords, eye-liner, and ships any day.
Gentlemen vs. Pirates
Well, now that I've seen both movies I feel like I can make some sort of judgment about both of them. While I found both movies entertaining, Pirates of the Caribbean was by far the better movie. I don't think anything can change that opinion and, in many ways, I believe it is a fact as well.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is not a bad movie, it just happens to have some flaws that I'm having a hard time ignoring. A lot of these flaws center around the characters and the way they are used to further the somewhat weak plot. In fact, it seems to me that the characters were supposed to be the attraction and the plot was just throw-away so the movie could begin a series.
It doesn't work here though. The characters, as written in the script and presented in the movie, are just as throw-away. They were never developed into characters I really cared about. (For example, the death at the end barely affected me besides "Oops, ____ is dead." *shrug*) Which, I think, is where the movie really went wrong. From what I've read, Alan Moore's graphic novel seems to be more character oriented. Here the characters are introduced and then pushed aside for the action. They were left inconsistent and fairly one-dimensional. There is a scene toward the climax in the movie where the League joins hands like football players before the big game. You are supposed to get the feeling that they have reconciled their differences and are now a real team. Instead the act itself seemed like a half-hearted attempt to show the audience what we should have been able to see ourselves. We had to be shown it instead.
None of this is the fault of the actors. They were all very very good. :)
I found a quote in Creative Screenwriting that pretty much sums up my feelings of disappointment. "[The writers & Fox] brought the characters to the screen, but couldn't bring them to life." Pity. It could have been a great movie. Instead I found it luke warm.
On the other hand, Pirates of the Caribbean was a delightful surprise. Seeing previews early on I wasn't particularly anxious in seeing the movie, but as it's release grew near the trailers for it got better. They intrigued me and that is always a good thing. And I will admit to having a certain fascination with anything to do with tall ships.
The success of the movie, for me, lies in the performances. Disney took a big risk with Johnny Depp. I have never seen him in anything where he didn't do something interesting or different with his character. And I can completely understand the people at Disney being a bit worried about his performance. His Jack Sparrow is perpetually half-drunk and ever so slightly fey. And he completely makes the movie.
The other actors are great as well, particularly Geoffrey Rush. (If they ever make Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire into a movie I think Rush would make a great Mad-Eye Moody.) The cast of pirates was nicely done. They weren't just a bunch of eye patches and wooden legs, they actually had some personality. Which is perhaps one of the things I enjoyed about this movie. The characters were allowed to develop and change.
I have heard people complain about the length of Pirates, and it is a little long at times, but it uses it's time more wisely than the slightly shorter Gentlemen (which felt as though they realized they were nearing the two hour mark and needed to wrap things up quickly). If time had been used better in Gentlemen perhaps I would have liked it more.
So, basically, I liked Gentlemen and I loved Pirates. Give me swords, eye-liner, and ships any day.
