Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Dir. Rob Marshall
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 128mins

These days a trilogy just isn’t complete without a fourth entry to screw up everybody’s DVD shelves of collectable boxsets. Just last month audiences were treated to Scream 4, a sequel that transcended it’s obvious grab-for-cash qualities by reuniting the original trilogy’s director, screenwriter and (surviving) stars. Horror franchises are rarely given such liberties with their fourth instalments as they usually spin off into silliness and irrelevance. Now even Hollywood blockbuster trilogies aren’t safe, even after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull irked multiple generations of new and old fans alike. Movie series’ such as the Bourne titles and X-Men are getting mutant forth entries. Does nobody respect the sanctity of the movie trilogy?

First though we get Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the fourth instalment of the popular franchise that began on such a high of swash and buckle with The Curse of the Black Pearl and ended in excessive blather with At World’s End. Rob Marshall has picked up directing duties from Gore Verbinski, Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom must still be stuck on that cliffside shack because they didn’t show up either, although Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush do return as Captain Jack Sparrow and Captain Barbossa respectively. Screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio are still here for writing duties, but they’re clearly working on fumes as On Stranger Tides feels excessively tired and been-there-done-that in almost every regard. Apart from Penelope Cruz’s cleavage. That’s new and special. And in 3D too.


Oh, 3D. Granted, I haven’t seen Clash of the Titans, which is apparently one of the worst uses of 3D on record, but Marshall’s film marked the first time I actually sat there hating the use of this third dimensional technology. Even in films like The Green Hornet or Pixar’s work where the 3D has been used unnecessarily it was never actually flat out bad and never did I actively start to dislike the movie for using it. The tinted glasses do this film no favours whatsoever, making an already dark and interior film look decidedly darker. Unlike the James Cameron produced Sanctum, the caves of On Stranger Tides are rendered muddy and lifeless due to the 3D. There is no depth provided by the technology; in fact, I was able to take the glasses off for a good 40 minutes or so and found no issue at all.

These films are traditionally bright, colourful and vivid with their use of colour and there are stretches of On Stranger Tides that are no different with its lush, tropical greens, yellows and blues. They don’t need the extra technology to look more impressive – nature is the greatest CGI after all. It’s needless and actually disruptive to the film’s quality.

I guess I should just be thankful that this film’s running time is a much more friendly 128 minutes rather than the absurd 170 of At World’s End. Marshall certainly did well in keeping a fine eye on the editing suite, directing the shortest film of the franchise. Marshall, it must be said, as always, has delivered a film of fine technical merit – Penny Rose’s costume design is yet again the unheralded champion, can you believe she hasn’t received a single Oscar nomination for her efforts on this franchise? – but he cannot save the film from its unnecessary, rather ho-hum atmosphere.


The cast are merely going through the motions, although Rush eats so much scenery in his early scenes I was frightened he’s get indigestion! Cruz and Ian McShane make acceptable, if unremarkable, newcomers to the franchise, but Sam Clafin is no Orlando Bloom and you know something’s not right when you write that in a review.

Perhaps it’s just a case of not being able to recreate the initial sensation that came with seeing The Curse of the Black Pearl, but this franchise should just stop. Not even the trademark fight choreography or Cruz’s delicately-placed crucifix can save it. At least the endless parade of sequels that horror franchise’s get don’t cost the GDP of some small nations! The excitement, or even the vaguest of interests, has gone and it’s going to take more than a few fresh faces to get it back. C

The Incredible 1980s Power Looks of Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou

Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou (or Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II depending on what country you're from) is a horror film from 1987. It shares literally nothing whatsoever in common with it's predecessor, Prom Night, other than, yes, a prom is involved in each. This sequel revolves around the ghost of "Mary Lou" (Lisa Schrage), a high school slut who died at the prom in 1957 and has now taken over the body of "Vicki" (Wendy Lyon), a plain - some may some homely - schoolgirl who was recently nominated for Mary Lou's coveted Prom Queen title.

The movie is generally uninteresting and, much like Prom Night, is kinda boring and has that washed out look that a lot of 1980s horror flicks have. What is incredible about this movie is how completely and utterly 1980s it is. The fashion! The hair! The new wave music ripoffs! As I watched this movie I got the unsinkable sense that Flock of Seagulls had been really popular in Canada at the time. Oh yeah, this is a Canadian movie! It's basically what would happen if the cast of Degrassi performed an amateur production of Carrie!


Sunglasses... on a chain (but not at night)! Oh lordy.


A pearl necklace, floral knit tops, big pop star hair and chunky earrings. Oh yes.


I had a "boombox" just like that when I was a young'n.


You cannot deny that this is incredible.



This is Beth Gondek playing "Jess" who looks like Joan Cusack in Working Girl, but even funnier because, umm, this is set in a Canadian high school, not New York City. Jess has a secret - at first I thought she was a lesbian who was in love with Vicki, but it turns out she's just preggers to a creep who won't call her back! Mary Sue's demonic spirit throws her out a window. Poor Jess. POOR JESS' CAPE!


I see so many different hair styles in just these two images. And that's a big "Hello!" to the shirt that guy is wearing in the first picture (I never caught that character's name.)


Is that scene set in a gymnasium or a fashion mall? I never can tell with the 1980s.


I just find this picture amusing, don't you?


I love that people wore this shit TO SCHOOL!


I'd like to point out that that first image is a school teacher caressing the buttocks of Vicki. Yes, a teacher. Amazing. That second picture? Okay, there's an entire scene in Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou in which Vicki chases her next victim completely starkers. And I don't mean in any Austin Powers sorta way, I mean complete head to toe nudity. Way too much vagina in this scene, thank you very much. It's the most ridiculous thing in the entire movie and that's saying something!


I love that this Prom looks like nothing more than an Oingo Boingo videoclip with some fluorescent stripping.


Look at that computer! It makes The Net look positively modern!


What losers.
This next shot, the final one thankfully, isn't particularly "omg how funny were the '80s?" but I found it equally as hilarious. It's right after Vicki has won the title of Prom Queen and she stands on stage accepting her crown, but she's not elegant at all. She stands up on the stage in the high school auditorium like she's Ethel Merman on a cruise ship.


And that's basically all I have to say about Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou other than to share with you my favourite moment from the movie. Favourite because it was so unexpected. Don't have the volume on at work though, kids!

Cinema of the Absurd: Staying Alive

STAYING ALIVE (1983, dir. Sylvester Stallone)


Three words come to mind when I think of Sylvester Stallone's apparent sequel to Saturday Night Fever - Preposterous, leotards and masturbatory. Obviously amongst others descriptors such as 'poorly acted', 'awkwardly choreographed' and 'eye-buggingly hilarious'.

Plot: Tony Manero (John Travolta) is now a down-on-his-luck Broadway-wannabe dating Jackie (Cynthia Rhodes) another dancer who has a chorus role in a production starring the (I think) Russian superstar Laura (no last name provided) played by soap-star Finola Hughes. All three eventually land roles in a hot new musical called "Satan's Alley". Tony happens to become the lead because the director has a hunch that he's better than the man who's starred in 6 Broadway shows (or whatever) and soon enough Tony is torn even more. Then comes the oh-so-hard decision of "To wear clothes, or not to wear clothes". Frivolity ensues. Let's discuss.

Proposterous - Everything about this movie fits this description. How could any movie be this cliched? Well, I'm not entirely sure, but director, co-writer and co-producer Sylvester Stallone (!!!) sure did manage to make it happen. The films opens with a ridiculous Broadway audition. Ridiculous because it shamelessly steams from a Broadway-set musical that was made four years prior - All That Jazz. The first thing I actually noticed though was John Travolta's hair. I know it was the '80s, but John's hair is approaching massive scales here. I'm fairly certain the amount of hair sprays used on this film are at least partially responsible for the hole in the Ozone Layer.

One of my biggest pet peeves about movie musicals that have production numbers set on a stage is when they forget that apparently there are people actually sitting in a theatre watching it occur in front of their eyes without the added extra of camera angles, edits and effects. My only fault with Lloyd Bacon's 1933 musical 42nd Street is apparently the big production number at the end is being performed infront of an audience, yet the film's most famous shot is of a camera moving through the legs of a chorus of leggy female dancers and meeting our loving couple at the end. The shot is amazing and looks great, however, if you were in the audience it would merely be some dancers standing on a stage with two people lying on the stage at the end of it. And don't even mention the fact that the musical appears to only be 15 minutes long (I know they can't show the entire production, but at least make it appear as if stuff is missing).

Now, that brings me back to Staying Alive and the preposterous production number that concludes the film. Now, I always thought Broadway musicals had dancing AND singing, not just dancing - but maybe the '80s were different? Anyway, watching the 10-15minute cut of the production we see at the end of this film is like watching some unholy freak light show at a bondage orgy. We don't have any idea as to what Tony's character is supposed to be, or even where he is (we know he's in Hell because we've been told earlier in the movie). Finola Hughes' portrayal of the Devil is assumed simply because of the red leotard she is wearing. Add to that camera angles and dance moves that the audience wouldn't be able to see and it was just so weird watching it. And add to that the fact that THE LEAD OF AN EXPENSIVE BROADWAY PRODUCTION DECIDES TO IMPROVISE A DANCE SOLO RIGHT BEFORE THE BIG FINALE! At that stage I just couldn't stop laughing. And then to top it all off, the characters start to talk to one another while on stage. It's all so hilariously stupid that you sort of need to laugh.


Leotards - Aah, leotards. Apart from Madonna, has anyone ever looked good in a leotard? It doesn't help that every. single. one. is. ugly. My favourite (ie; the ugliest) was this disgusting yellow... thing that Finola Hughes wears in rehearsal. It. Was. Grotesque. One of the film's funniest scenes (seen above) is when Cynthia's Jackie gets dropped off at the rehearsal theatre by her date and meets Tony. Tony asks her if they can rehearse the dance number, she says sure, and then proceeds to take her coat off to reveal a tight pink leotard! If you were a horny dancer (which they all are apparently) and were going on a date would you WEAR YOUR LEOTARD?! And a full-body one at that. I must say though, I was tres pleased to see Jackie wearing LEG WARMERS. They had been suspiciously absent from the movie until that point.

Mastabatory - As far as I know, Sylvester Stallone isn't gay. I am positive he wasn't pulling a Victor Salva and turning his movie into soft-core gay porn, but just LOOK at that poster at the top. that was the first image of the movie people would see. And trust me it ain't a pretty site in the movie either. It's all quite ridiculous watching Travolta prance around trying to look all manly and macho with his black singlet top and dripping with sweat. It's all very strange watching John writhe around on stage looking like an over-worked gigolo, but that's what it's like.

Conclusion - Really though, Staying Alive needs to be seen to be believed. It is utterly ridiculous, ludicrous and silly. How did Stallone and co think people were going to buy into this as serious material? Luckily for us, we can look upon it today as the absurdity it is and look at it fondly. I appreciate this movie for providing so much. Not many other movies can claim to not destroy the career of two up-and-comers (1983 was the beginning of John Travolta's first decent into over-the-hilldom and Cynthia Rhodes' career never took off because of it too) and one director (after 1985's Rocky IV Stallone never directed again until this year's newest Rocky sequel) and I'm sure The BeeGees, leotard manufacturers, Broadway producers and any other film that had dance in them were negatively effected because of it. All in all though, Staying Alive is a hoot and a half.

On the Absurdity scale from 1-5, I rate Staying Alive a 4.5
It's pretty fuckin' absurd!