Saddle Sore

You know that thing that seems like a really bad idea? Somebody's going through with something, and for the energy and attention and hype they are devoting to that project, you can't for the life of you understand why? That's pretty much my case with Disney's epic western, The Lone Ranger. All the elements for failure are here. With very few exceptions, nobody WATCHES westerns anymore. On top of that, the budget for this particular piece is so bloated ($215 million, not counting advertising) that it would have to be the highest grossing western ever JUST to be considered a success. Plus, Disney's attempts to push into the action-adventure genre in recent years have fallen flat creatively, and for every financially successful dip into the nostalgia pool (Oz the Great and Powerful) there have been far too many pricey belly flops (Prince of Persia, John Carter and the last Pirates flick, for example). Finally, there's a bunch of negative attention out there focused on the casting of Johnny Depp as Comanche sidekick Tonto, which essentially has the top-billed star performing the Native American variant of blackface. Can The Lone Ranger overcome all these issues by simply issuing the statement that it was from the same team that brought you Pirates of the Caribbean (director Gore Verbinski, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Depp)?

The short answer is no, it cannot.

Surrender is not an option.

Based on the character from the popular TV show and radio serials that first appeared way back in the 1930's, The Lone Ranger tells the origin of the man once known as John Reid (Armie Hammer), who returns home from college to Colby, Texas to become the new District Attorney. Unknowingly, he is aboard the same train as outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), soon about to hang for his crimes against the Indian natives. But when Cavendish's gang breaks him out, kills several Texas Rangers (John's brother included) and leaves the young lawyer for dead, John must team up with eccentric Comanche Tonto (Depp) to avenge his family and bring law back to the untamed West as the masked outlaw known as The Lone Ranger

Hope you like him... he gets old fast.

Right from the start, we're assaulted with idiotic imagery, as the opening scene takes place in a San Francisco museum in the 1930's, where a young fan of the Lone Ranger meets an aged and demented Tonto (Depp in heavy makeup). There, Tonto begins to narrate the entire tale, a plot device so contrived and ill-conceived that I can't believe it made the final cut. Why not just go right into the story and action? Do we NEED to see that no matter what, the legend of the Ranger has endured? Isn't what you're about to show us going to do that? It's a lousy way to begin this whole experience, as I don't ever remember Pirates needing to remind us that the entire plot was written around a theme park ride.

The railroad: our first major environmental devastator.

This is just the beginning of Lone Ranger's problems, as that opening (and subsequent occasional story-breaking subplot) sets the tone for a movie that can't figure out what it wants to be. On one hand, it's light-hearted action-adventure, with classic cowboy gun play, colorful bad guys and even a bit of witty dialogue. On the other, it tries way too hard to overcome its lighter fare and attempts to show some authentic culture of the time. This includes a scene in which one of the bad guys (in this case, Barry Pepper's military officer) leads an army in the slaughter of an invading Comanche tribe. With bodies clogging up a river, it's a powerfully sad reminder of the atrocities committed in the name of "progress." And then, not twenty seconds later, Tonto tells a one-liner about a horse. It's this unevenness in theme and plot even within the confines of a single scene that mars much of the fun that could have been had with this western tale.

HBC with a gun leg? Are you sure Tim Burton didn't direct this bit?

And that's sad, because the film really does have its moments. Despite any niggling concerns about the quality of the production, this is a veteran team who have committed great acts of filmmaking in the past. This was especially true for the first Pirates of the Caribbean, and there are times during Ranger where you remember why you liked that swashbuckling adventure so much. The action is better than you might expect, culminating in an insanely epic - and surprisingly fun - battle atop, under and through racing train cars, set to an updated (but still classic-sounding) variant of Rossini's 'William Tell Overture.' Though the special effects are not always as sharp as they could be, at least they don't possess the cartoonish quality of a George Lucas adventure. It's easily some of Verbinski's best action work, and never feels overlong (which you couldn't say about any of Pirates' battles). There are also a slew of talented actors and interesting characters, though for the life of me I'm not sure how I feel about Ruth Wilson's mediocre performance. On the more positive side, Armie Hammer is as pleasant a lead as you can get. I wish he'd pick better projects (his last two were the terrible Mirror Mirror and the meh J. Edgar), but at least you can't say anything negative about his efforts or talent. He's supported by a bevy of charismatic villains in Fichtner, Pepper, and Tom Wilkinson as a corrupt business magnate (in Hollywood, is there any other kind?), who are a triple threat to the forces of justice. However, I wish we could have seen a bit more of Helena Bonham Carter's peg-legged (and bad-ass) brothel madam Red Harrington, who charms in a few scenes but is missing for almost the entirety of the movie. James Badge Dale meanwhile rounds out the cast (and is enjoying a pretty good career run presently) as John's brother.

Let's just get this trope out of the way.

But the film boasts two big stars. One is featured on the poster above; the other is not. One was in Pirates of the Caribbean; the other was not. One has a few moments of levity but is otherwise remarkable; the other is a horse who absolutely steals the show. Johnny Depp fails to attain the same level of entertainment he managed as Captain Jack Sparrow, which I wouldn't even bother mentioning if it weren't obvious they were trying to emulate the exact same process by making Tonto a wise-cracking, deranged and occasionally dangerous individual who is supposed to steal scenes and chew scenery. However, he doesn't do any of those things, despite wearing a dead bird on his head and wearing more makeup than KISS. His too-frequent motions to "feed" the bird get old after the first few minutes, and his monotonously-delivered dialogue doesn't show the same charisma we've come to expect from the actor. And his Native American routine (which I'm sure was meant to be endearing and honorable) never feels fully developed, as though he and the filmmakers never really took the time to nail down his characteristics. While it's certainly not as insulting as it could have been (especially when there are a few Native American actors in here that are great), there's no doubt that Depp was the wrong man for the job (seriously, the kid who plays his younger self has darker skin), brought in as box office padding and nothing more.

Guess who's better?

No, the star of The Lone Ranger turns out to be none other than Silver, the albino horse who can often be seen hanging out in trees or silently arguing with his human counterparts. Stories from the set overtly praise the abilities of Silver, and his on-screen antics certainly seem to prove these tales accurate. However, he doesn't stand out in all that many scenes, and even then as a comedic foil to the Ranger and even to Tonto's more lucid moments. Still, it's a sad day in the industry when a horse not only outperforms his human hosts, but does so with relative ease.

"I am the Law."

Sadly, despite a few glimmers of genuinely strong filmmaking, The Lone Ranger is everything you might have feared: it's a pretty, over-bloated, uneven, SFX-dependent, mediocre, and slightly racist epic that never deserves the attention that it attempts to demand. It's understandable why the marketing department for this film focused so hard on the "from the people who brought you Pirates" plan, as I'm sure the remaining fans of that franchise represented a significant percentage of those who actually showed up opening weekend. But Lone Ranger is no Curse of the Black Pearl. Its desire to resurrect the western genre is admirable, but better movies have been made in recent years (including True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma) that had far less a budget than the one used by Bruckheimer and crew. If he and his fellow producers had perhaps lowered their ambitions somewhat and put together a smaller, low-tech production with the crew and cast that they had, The Lone Ranger might have been a winner. As it is, it's just a mess we'll they'll be spending the next couple of weeks cleaning up.

The Ballad of a Drunkard

There are few in the United States who would not know who you were talking about were you to mention the name Hunter S. Thompson. A popular author, he is credited with the invention of "Gonzo Journalism", or planting yourself so deeply in the news story you are covering so that you are in fact the central character. His nonfiction books Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail still sell well forty years after they were first published, and are often reqired reading for anyone studying American Literature in establishments of higher learning. Known for his prolific drug and alcohol abuse, a complete inability (or unwillingness) to objectively cover stories, a deep hatred for Richard Nixon, and for his tragic suicide in 2005, Thompson has become perhaps more popular following his death than he ever had in his long career. Therefore it's almost sad that he has left no contemporaries in his wake; Gonzo Journalism has never seen a writer so regarded by the everyman, and that all Thompson might be leaving behind are his own words is all at once sad and hopeful: sad because there may never be another writer like him, and hopeful since as long as his words exist, so does his influence. But it's not his political work that we are here for today. In 1998 Thompson released his first published novel The Rum Diary to the public. After two failed attempts to adapt the book to the big screen in 2000 and 2002, bandying about such names as Nick Nolte, Benicio del Toro and Josh Hartnett, and with Thompson himself referring to the process as a "waterhead fuckaround" among other things, things finally got underway in 2007, with Bruce Robinson directing and writing the screenplay for the title, starring Johnny Depp as Thompson's autobiographical protagonist Paul Kemp.

Another adventure through sobriety

It is the 1950's. Paul Kemp has left mainland America for the beautiful shores of Puerto Rico, where he has taken a job as a journalist for the San Juan Star. The financially-challenged paper has him writing Astrology columns and articles about bowling alleys and American tourism, while ignoring major cultural stories as "uninteresting." The San Juan editor in chief Edward J Lotterman (Richard Jenkins) is only interested in selling newspapers, not telling people the news. As Kemp explores the ups and downs of this island, he is approached by unscrupulous businessman Hal Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart). Hal wants Paul to help them with his writing to build luxury hotels on an uninhabited island in the Caribbean, and doesn't care who he screws over to get it. Paul meanwhile is far more interested in Sanderson's fiance, the sultry and sexually provocative Chenault (Amber Heard), and wants nothing to do with Hal's gaudy rich lifestyle. Caught between a failing newspaper and an real love, failed novelist and rum enthusiast Paul struggles in his attempts to put words down on paper in his own voice.

Paul practices his "my eyes are up here" stare

Though English director Bruce Robinson hasn't helmed a motion picture since the 1992 thriller Jennifer 8, he manages to do a surprising number of things correctly in what is arguably his biggest ever stage. For one thing, he does a stellar job showing the gross division between the luxurious tourist sections of Puerto Rico and the island's destitute native villages. One is filled to the brim with ocean-front hotels, bowling alleys and casinos, catering to obese and gleeful white people, while the ghettos are littered with trash and broken vehicles, with cockfights and dirty children on every corner. In one otherwise notion-less scene, Eckhart's less-than-generous character shouts angrily at natives who watch his private beach from the jungle. The difference between the bright and sandy beach and the dark, foreboding jungle is so strong that you can practically TASTE the inequality present. Robinson surely knew what he wanted to portray most about this country's ownership of this small island, and from stories I've been privy to over the years there's little that has changed in the past sixty years, making this point as timely as it ever was.

Eckhart tries to teach Depp to act like a real person, to poor effect

Unfortunately, that's the best The Rum Diary can come up with, as the rest of the movie is a batch of seemingly but not necessarily connected set of scenes portraying everything from hits from psychadelic drugs to more literal hits, especially when Kemp and his associate Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli) are being hunted down by a lynch mob. A brief scene of Kemp and Sala debating who will be the next US President shows Thompson's intense dislike of Nixon, but the whole thing has little to do with the rest of the tale, a burden that many other scenes carry, especially in the film's final act. Worst of all perhaps is that Kemp/Thompson's writing voice is almost tossed aside, rarely making appearances and doing nothing to appeal to anyone other than Thompson's hardcore fanbase.

He might not be sober, but he can still drive... honest!

Speaking of which, one of Thompson's biggest fans is in fact Johnny Depp, playing a Thompson character for the second time in his career after headlining the cult classic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. However, those expecting another performance to match those of Depp's more eccentric roles will be in for a heady disappointment. Obviously Depp can't be expected to match the manic energy of characters like Captain Jack Sparrow or Edward Scissorhands every time out. However, he has always seemed overmatched playing everyman roles, with last year's The Tourist a perfect example of the wrong that can come from casting him as such. He has his moments, but there is very little reason beyond bare-bones ideals to care about this alcoholic druggie with only slightly fewer scruples than his enemies, and Depp does little to raise this character above that low bar. Another disappointment is Eckhart as Hal Sanderson, a true shame since this is usually the kind of role that Eckhart could run away with on a bad day. Instead he is far too constricted by a script that portrays him as one-dimensional cipher, part of the 1% that people will blindly lash out against on principle alone. Richard Jenkins as newspaperman Lotterman is only slightly better, with at least a small amount of depth keeping him from the gutter. Jenkins pulls Lotterman up by the bootstraps, making a character who is undeniably cruel, but with perfectly logical reasoning behind his actions. A lack of real good guys is an ever-present issue with the film, with a greasy photographer played by Michael Rispoli and a neo-Nazi scrub played by Giovanni Ribisi the closest thing the film creates as allies for Kemp. With friends like these... at least the casting department got one thing undeniable right; as one of the few bright spots in 2011's worst picture nominee Drive Angry, Amber Heard gets another chance to showcase her talents as the film's main love interest. Though underutilized, Heard makes every moment on screen count far more than any of her co-stars, and even manages to coax some of the somehow elusive charm (usually in no short supply) from Depp's performance.

"Three Men on a Bike" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

With a lackluster tale that feels unfinished, broken in some places and unnecessary in others, The Rum Diary is about as far from a good day's entertainment as one can get without being a complete travesty. There are some good sequences early on, but that good will doesn't last as the film's second half is full of incomplete thoughts, harvested from the fringes of an altered mind. This isn't the film many think it should be, and it certainly isn't the film that Hunter S. Thompson - or any author for that matter - deserves as his legacy. While The Rum Diary isn't the bad movie I'd thought it might be, its lack of drive and focus turn it into a thoroughly mediocre one. When you consider Thompson's controversial career, calling a movie based on his works mediocre is really a worse fate.

Theme Ride Retread

2011 might be remembered as the year of the Hollywood sequel. In January, it was announced that 27 film sequels were scheduled for release during this year, and many of them not the first continuations of their franchises. While nine titles were the first attempts to continue series such as Pixar's Cars 2 and the live-action The Hangover Part II, many more are even further along film-wise, with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 being the eighth addition to the series. As for fourth-film sequels, 2011 will have featured the greatest number of franchises that have lasted until the fourth release, including additions to the Mission: Impossible, Scream and Spy Kids sagas. For most of these releases, it is a sign from the powers that be that they can't (or won't) take chances when it comes to business as usual, so the sequel seems the way to go for guaranteed positive business. Most notable in that vein may be Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the latest offering from the series based on the Disney park theme ride of the same name. When the original Pirates was released back in 2003, it made a legitimate blockbuster star out of Johnny Depp and his legendary character of Captain Jack Sparrow, and the film's financial success guaranteed that there would be much more to come. The first two sequels, Dead Man's Chest and At World's End, were disappointing to many critics and fans, but still sold out theaters and made gobs of dough for their efforts. Hence this attempt to rejuvenate the franchise with new characters, a new director (Rob Marshall), and otherwise the same old crew of miscreants, scallywags and swashbucklers appearing for your hard-earned dollar. For the last few months, I was convinced that this newest addition (supposedly the first of a new trilogy) would be either the best or the worst the series had to offer. By the time the final credits rolled, I was somewhat surprised by the results.

And THAT'S where the rum has gone!

Some time after the events of At World's End, Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) finds himself in London. There, he searches for an impostor who is hiring a crew under his own name, supposedly on the hunt for the legendary Fountain of Youth. Discovering the impostors, Sparrow finds himself an important cog in a race to the location of the fountain, as three major forces move in for the prey: the powerful Spanish Armada, a British privateer ship captained by none other than Sparrow's rival Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), and a pirate ship captained by one of the most prolific legends of all time, Blackbeard himself (Ian McShane) and his daughter and Jack's former lover Angelica (Penelope Cruz).

"Carriage Surfing" was all the rage in London back then. Go ahead, put that in your term paper.

For one, I was quite happy for the change of characters in On Stranger Tides. While Sparrow and Barbossa are back, I was relieved when I learned that Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom would not be returning as fated lovers Elizabeth and William, since their characters had run the course (and yes, I'm aware that the actors opted out for that same reason, you don't need to tell me). Instead, Marshall's plan implemented a more original route than his predecessor Gore Verbinski, who became so engrossed in the universe he had created he forgot that he was supposed to be making entertainment. Marshall's fresh eyes (as well as inspiration from Tim Powers' classic pirate novel On Stranger Tides) help to almost reboot the series while still remaining faithful to the original material. Intact is Jack's atypical sense of wit and logic, Jerry Bruckheimer's action-oriented strand of narrative, and the twisted bits of pirate lore and history that engulf the series's background. Sure, you could see a much more historically-accurate portrayal of life at sea in 2003's underrated Master and Commander, but that's never really been what Pirates was about. While it might pick and jab at historical iconography, the original trilogy reveled in silliness and good humor, while never backing away from the real and imaginary dangers of the world at that time. It reminds me so much of another swashbuckling adventure series, the Monkey Island games for the PC, of which the films have often been implied or accused of having copied.

Iam McShane warns Depp of the dangers of typecasting.

It's really a shame then that a film with so many things I love felt so disjointed. On Stranger Tides feels almost like a second cousin to its grandiose forebears, as even the effects-heavy bits don't stand up in scale to even those of the lesser Pirates sequels. Of course, that is no moon; one of the original trilogy's problems was Bruckheimer's overly-leaden special effects were merely cover for inane plots and plain silliness that didn't benefit the film at all. By scaling down the SFX here (even while incorporating the unnecessary 3D), the story is forced out into the open, allowing the screenwriters to flesh it out a bit more to modern standards. It isn't enough; the plot is very linear and uncompromising, with promising sub-stories either jarringly off the track or ignored altogether. While some genius exists (for instance seeing Jack's brain working out an escape plan in an early scene) the vast majority of the film is merely okay, generic pirate stories masquerading as an equal to The Iliad or The Odyssey.

In other news, Geoffrey Rush tries on a new hat!

Jack Sparrow himself is also dangerously overexposed as a character; while Depp never makes any obvious miscues, Sparrow doesn't have nearly as much of the strong support needed to thrive as a leading star. While I don't miss Will and Elizabeth, I do miss the way their normalized manners grounded Sparrow as a character, not allowing himself to get too carried away; here, he's a free bird, and this bird you cannot change. Depp still does an amazing job delving into the role of Jack Sparrow, I just wish he could have had someone to play off him better. That job COULD have belonged to Penelope Cruz, but despite the amazing chemistry that develops between Depp's deranged charmer and Cruz's sharp-tongued schemer, they simply don't spend enough time together to make it fulfilling. Worse, Angelica transforms from bad-ass femme fatale  to devoted daddy's girl to vengeful psychotic, much to the chagrin of The Opinioness, I'm sure. Ian McShane is the best, no surprise to any who have witnessed his starring turn on HBO's Deadwood. The veteran actor perfectly takes over from previous villains Rush and Bill Nighy emulating one of history's most notorious pirate lords. Edward "Blackbeard" Teach has a reputation for ruthlessness and cruelty (which history may dispute but hey, it makes a good story) and McShane brings it out brilliantly. His voice also emulates that of Monkey Island's Ghost Pirate LeChuck, so he's got that going for him too (okay, no more M.I. asides, I assure you). Geoffrey Rush returns once more, but despite his not-inconsiderable talent, the character of the pirate Barbossa has pretty much run its course, and should have been retired after At World's End. Sam Claflin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey have little to do, and their story is sadly off-kilter with the rest of the film. Claflin plays a missionary who Angelica obtains to try and save her father's soul, while Berges-Frisbey is a mermaid who the crew needs to find the Fountain of Youth. Like Will and Elizabeth, the two have a romance that defies expectations, but because the characters aren't very well developed and the side-plot all but ignored by the script until it matters, both are relegated to the largely-silent background.

"And just like that... the rum was gone again."

I suppose expecting that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides could top Curse of the Black Pearl for top Pirates movie might have been a little ambitious. Curse was a wonderful fantasy story in a setting that hadn't seen any film popularity in years, and what it succeeded in was more than could be hoped for in ANY sequel. Still, On Stranger Tides does what only a Pirates movie can do best: disarm you with witty humor before the epic sword fight or sea battle keeps you on the edge of your seat. As a franchise film, it's better than either of Verbinski's attempts, and as a sequel it's better than Scream 4 but not as good as Fast Five. Far from masterful but still a lot of fun, On Stranger Tides is one good director and one great screenplay away from rekindling the magic that was the franchise's origins.

Chameleons of the Mojave

As I've mentioned before, it often takes a lot for me to want to see an animated film in the theaters. Despite the universal appeal associated with films like The Incredibles, Up, WALL-E and the Toy Story franchise, I tend to wait until they're available on DVD rather than pay the ticket price when they first come out. Of course, "eye-popping" 3D technology has become a game-changer, as most animated films released in the past year did so with that gimmick in hand. Though 3D has yet to garner a mainstream appeal in home entertainment systems, mostly due to price and uneven reviews (thus rendering the medium moot on DVD for the time being), it still isn't enough to drive me to the theaters to see such a film. Mainly I think I have problems paying good money to see a title geared towards small children, but the best animated features appeal to viewers of all ages. Still, I tucked that thought away to see my first animated film of 2011 (and the first in the theater since who knows when) in the Gore Verbinski-directed Rango. The trailer caught my eye some months ago, and so as it was one of my more awaited March films, I chose it over The Adjustment Bureau and Take Me Home Tonight when picking which film I wanted to see this past weekend.

"Psst! Are you holding?"

Johnny Depp voices the film's main character, a mysterious stranger who goes by the name of Rango. Actually, Rango is an unnamed and domesticated chameleon who ends up separated from his human owners in the middle of the Mojave Desert, consequently a fish out of water trying to find salvation from certain death and  - possibly more important - from loneliness. Rango feels so alone in the world, and when he comes across the animal-run town of Dirt, the actor in him creates the Rango persona to be notorious, heroic, mysterious; all the things he wasn't in his previous life. It works well until the facade begins to crumble under the pressure of keeping up appearances and the town's need for a real hero, something Rango isn't sure he truly is.

Despite popular conception, cowboys and baked beans don't mix

Rango is a true homage to films set the wild west; it plays out like a light-hearted Sergio Leone spaghetti western, right down to its authentic character archetypes and camera angles. While Rango himself is more of an outsider, the townsfolk are legitimate western folk, from the orphaned daughter of an alcoholic father fighting to control her land (voiced by Isla Fisher) to an overly-nervous bank manager (Stephen Root), a bandit outlaw (Bill Nighy) and a charismatic double-talking mayor (Ned Beatty), just represented by animals. While being perhaps cliches of preexisting characters, the director and actors do amazing work by treating the material straight and making what could have been a ridiculous farce into quality craftsmanship. The film even has it's own narrative mariachi band ("manned" by owls, no less) to help keep the film going on at a brisk pace.

Most awkward wedding photo EVER

The acting here is simply outstanding, and Verbinski made the right choice issuing Depp to lead this cast, though perhaps not for the reasons you might think. Despite his fame for playing such eccentric characters as The Mad Hatter, Edward Scissorhands and of course Captain Jack Sparrow, Depp actually plays the role of "the normal guy" so well that he disappears into this role. Having a voice-over part in this vein actually helps hide the fact that Depp is in fact he character in question, adding to his smooth delivery. He is also perfect in the cockier "Rango" persona, a mix between classic Robert Redford and a giddy schoolchild living out his wildest dream. Depp's more subdued performance also plays perfectly to his less-heralded co-stars, letting them shine around him. Fisher is perfect as the tough-girl romantic interest Beans, a desert iguana with self-defense mechanism (freezing in place) so out of kink that she suddenly stops at inopportune times. She also is the most vocal advocate against the problems the town has, and is most suspicious of this new stranger in town. Nighy is completely unrecognizable as the evil bandit Rattlesnake Jake, who terrorizes the small town of Dirt. Nighy is delightfully evil and revels in the role, though it's not a very big one by most standards. Beatty is similarly smarmy as the resident mayor/businessman, eyes constantly looking towards "the future." Abigail Breslin is underused but not misused as a young smart-mouthed child who eventually looks up to Rango, and Root is his usual outstanding self as several characters, most notably the nervous bank manager. Harry Dean Stanton, Alfred Molina, Timothy Olyphant, and Ray Winstone all do great work playing characters who help and hinder Rango along the line of the film's plot. The acting, with Depp at its core, is talent extraordinaire, a testament to Verbinski's skills at finding the best people for the roles.

"Fitting in" is usually not so impossible for a chameleon

The film surprised me in a many ways, but a few of them weren't as good. For one, a film supposedly geared towards children was surprisingly violent. I'm not suggesting all kids are going to be scared by this film, but the doesn't gloss over the violence inherent in the Western genre (guns, dehydration, explosions), painting a film that probably should have been marketed to teens instead. Though not overly or even aggressively violent (more focusing on the spirit of adventure), the film does have its scary moments, mostly thanks to Rattlesnake Jake and a giant hawk. Secondly, for a supposed comedy, it wasn't particularly funny. The first half of the film elicited nary a chuckle from the dialogue, mainly dependent on the slapstick elements of the film to get over on the kids. There are some good bits after the midway point (SPOILER: When Rango and his posse go undercover as traveling actors, their target responds "Thespians? That's illegal in seven states!"), the film is much more serious than the trailers would lead you to believe, including topics of death, mild and implied profanity and the consumption of alcohol. I'm not against these things; in fact, when the subject at hand is an homage to Western film, I should pretty much EXPECT it. I didn't, however, expect to find it here.

"But why is the RUM gone!?"

One of the more amazing things about this film is that it's a 3D animated film by a company that is usually only known for it's effects work. George Lucas's special effects company Industrial Light and Magic is usually associated with other films' special effects departments, but here they created the 3D modeling for their first feature film. The biggest surprise from all of this may be how amazingly well their first time went. Visuals, especially the sun-baked desert, are perfectly rendered, and the characters are expertly built, especially the multi-faceted Rango. Still, if the film had half of the technological wonder it did, it would still have all it needs to be a worthy film. Authentic environments, interesting characters, and respect for the source material; Rango takes all these things and turn it into one of the more unassumingly fun films this year. Charming itself to #1 on 2011's Top Film's list, Rango was a very different film than I had imagined going in. But when you focus on what the film IS, instead of what it was supposed to be, you can appreciate it for the amazing feeling it gives.

Like a Three Hour Tour

Back in early October, I happened upon a trio of trailers for films coming out later in 2010 that looked so good, I was chomping at the bit for the chance to see them. Hereafter, by Clint Eastwood and starring Matt Damon, was the first I saw but failed to impress, so overwrought with predictability and cheese. The Fighter, which I just reviewed on Wednesday, was much better and will probably be remembered as one of the best films this year. And so we come upon The Tourist. Headlined by hot-topic celeb actors Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp and directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (director of the fantastic German film The Lives of Others), The Tourist SHOULD have been an excellent film. How could you put this much talent in one film, along with co-star Paul Bettany, and not come away with something worth seeing? Answers may surprise you.

"So... come here often?"

In the film, Johnny Depp plays Frank Tupelo, a math teacher from the United States who's in Europe on vacation. While riding a train to Venice, Frank meets the mysterious Elise, played by Angelina Jolie. Elise is trying to throw the police off her trail by making them think that Frank is her husband, Alexander Pearce, who has been on the run from Scotland Yard for not paying millions in taxes on the money he stole from a gangster. The unwitting Frank is not only sought after by the police after meeting Elise, but also by the gangster and his thugs, who arrive in Venice to get the money that was stolen from them and take Elise and the man they think is her husband out of the picture for good.

"And THIS is the hotel we've bought for Maddox..."

The film is actually a remake, though one would have to be quite versed in foreign film (or have Wikipedia access on the fly) to realize that. The film was remade from the little-known 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer, meaning The Tourist is in the same boat as films Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Let Me In as a film that only recently had been released overseas before Hollywood went out and made their own versions. Of course, Girl and Let Me In were international hits, even if they were never promoted properly here. Anthony Zimmer was a bomb in France and never released in the States, so why they would remake this film is a mystery, unless someone liked the plot SO much that making the film was a foregone conclusion. The film does do some things well, especially in the cinematography department. Shots of Venice are absolutely exquisite. If you've never been to the place, you might not understand just how beautiful the city is, but the clarity of the film's shots stands out as one of the film's best aspects, and I found myself going back in time to wandering the ancient city's streets.

Bettany secretly teaches Depp how to be good in mediocre films

While the acting in the film should have been much better, I can't agree with so many reviewers who say that Jolie and Depp had NO chemistry here. It's simply not the kind of romantic entanglement you're used to in this type of film, and I actually thought the two of them did a fairly good job. Jolie was able to extend her "mysterious stranger" muscles as the beguiling Elise, and was much better than her ill-fated stint as an action hero in this year's Salt. Her role (and matching wardrobe) drew images in my head of other classic divas of yesteryear, such as Audrey Hepburn or Ingrid Bergman, and her charm draws the audience into paying attention to her every action. And Depp plays his usual blend of nervous oddball with a small bit of charm at the right moments. The problem with them stems not from their skills or chemistry, but rather that they have overly simplistic interactions. Frank can't take his eyes off of Elise, says something silly; She rebuffs him, often to the laughter of the audience; he can't get enough of it. It's funny at first until you realize that it's this pretty much over and over, with few scenes in between of the other major characters or Frank by himself just to break the monotony. At least they're better than their co-stars, and as sad as it is to say I think Paul Bettany has perhaps lost the ability to be in a decent flick. He's got the talent to be a star, but the best film he's been in recently was when he lent his voice to Tony Stark's digital butler Jarvis in Iron Man. Here his character is no better a law enforcement agent than Gunther Toody, and his obsession and reasons for doing anything to catch Pearce is never explained in any depth. Steven Berkoff as English gangster Reginald Shaw is flat and lifeless. The few instances he's given to be a more lively character go to waste, and Shaw's role in the story is mostly boring and uninspired. Other characters played by Timothy Dalton and Rufus Sewell are in the film so infrequently as to seem almost accidental, and are equally not worth mentioning. In all, there's simply not a lot to do in The Tourist if you're not it's biggest stars, and that gets old fast.

My, what a plunging neckline you have!

For an action/spy film, The Tourist has precious little of either. While the film does maintain excellent outdoor shots of Venice, some of the night or inside scenes look as if they were done on a set, most notably a mid-film shootout in the city's famous canal system. The scene is so unimpressive and overlong that you'd expect the film's other action sequences to be better, but you'd be wrong. The best is one of Depp running from gunmen across Venetian rooftops, and that was only because it took place in broad daylight and looked the most authentic, and even that's hampered by its lack of ingenuity. Elise does nothing badass that you can point at as proper for this genre. In fact, she's practically powerless over anyone who's not Frank. And speaking of Frank, his strength seems to be in running away, which he has to do on multiple occasions.So all the power in this film belongs to side characters who we care nothing about. Amazing work.

He's waiting to see how bad next year's Priest will be

It's a shame that a film that had such potential came crashing down to Earth out of the gate. The film has it's moments, but those amount to about twenty minutes of the film as opposed to 83 minutes in which the viewer  wishes it would stop. When you do the math, it's obvious this film shouldn't have been made without some serious alterations to the story. The worst thing I can say about this film is that for every reason you SHOULD like this film, there are plenty of examples of films you could see instead. Johnny Depp? Re-watching Pirates, Edward Scissorhands or Benny and Joon would help cure that craving. Von Donnersmarck? See The Lives of Others if you haven't already. Hell, if you have, see it again! Paul Bettany? Master and Commander and A Beautiful Mind have wonderful performances by him. Angelina Jolie? Take your pick: Wanted, Girl Interrupted, even Changeling are all superior titles in comparison. Even the lovely view of Venice can been seen in the vastly-superior spy film Casino Royale, even if not as well. So don't go out of your way to see The Tourist. It can be funny, and has it's moments, but not nearly enough to justify the purchase price when the market is filled with much better fare for your perusal.

Heeeeeeeere's Johnny!

There is a scene early on in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in which a young Alice (Mairi Ella Challen) confesses to her father (Marton Csokas) about her strange dreams and wonders aloud if she's crazy. Like a good father, he presses his hand to her forehead, takes it away, and morosely tells her that yes, she is quite bonkers. "But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are."

And so there's the ultimate message of this movie, delivered in the first five minutes. It's actually not a bad message; How obvious is it that the greatest minds of any generation - Galileo, Einstein - often spurned social convention because they were so sure they were right? Alice's father Charles Kingsleigh is portrayed as such a person, one who wanted to reroute English trade routes around the world in such a way that defied logic, or at least the logic of his possible investors, who were sure he was mad. And so many years later after her father's death and when she's come of age, Alice (In Treatment's Mia Wasikowska) becomes one as well. Brought to a party to be proposed to by a charming if dunderheaded lord, Alice steals away from the party chasing a white rabbit that she recognizes from her dreams, only to fall down the rabbit hole and into the place she used to go where she dreamed, a place she called Wonderland.

Tim Burton may not ever have been a great director, but usually he's at least solid. However, he hasn't had a good film since the largely underrated Big Fish in 2003, and his last film, Sweeney Todd, was surprisingly uninspired. For the man who brought us Edward Scissorhands, the quality of his films has been surprisingly shaky. But one thing has always been consistent: his image. There's a dark moodiness to vision that's in all his films, and it's perfectly situated in this film in the place of Wonderland. For every dark, creepy forest, or the zaniness of the rabbit hole Alice falls into, there's just as much in the bright false-happiness of the Red Queen's (Helena Bonham Carter) castle, or the striking brightness of the castle of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). It's that visual element that Burton revels in, which is what made Scissorhands and others of his films such modern classics.

I'll talk about the special effects, first. Alice in Wonderland was advertised as being in available in 3D in most theaters but the DVD version was only in 2D. It's an odd choice by the industry to have these recent movies that succeeded in large part in the theaters to their 3D promotions (Avatar, Clash of the Titans) to not release them in 3D for home consumption. Is it the technology? Coraline was released last year on DVD in 3D but it was not exactly a bright success in that medium. Perhaps they're taking the "special edition" route. In six months 3D versions of these movies will be made available on DVD, when you're not even watching the edition you already OWN. Regardless, you can pretty much tell by watching the movie where the 3D is SUPPOSED to be. Am I relieved that I haven't seen the 3D edition? Yes. Unlike the story-lite Avatar, we don't need the 3D in Alice to distract us from the fact that there's no unreasonable plot to follow. We can enjoy the movie for what it is, not what it wants us to see.

Mia Wasikowska may be playing the eponymous Alice, but Johnny Depp gets top billing. Why? Name recognition, of course! This is Disney we're talking about, and they know what sells tickets isn't necessarily a great story or groundbreaking effects or even great acting, but in fact the quality of the names you hire. And so we have Depp, champion of both Burton and box office, placed in the relatively small role of Mad Hatter...relatively small until Burton re-sized the Hatter's role to much more than just a tea party. The Hatter is still mad, of course, but lucidly mad, rather than completely, bat-crazy insane. And he's a veritable ally to Alice against the Red Queen, who has taken over Wonderland since Alice last visited (dreamed) it. He used to be quite sane, and a talented dancer to boot (unfortunately, we're subjected to this inane dance by the movie's end). All in all, Depp is perfectly cast, as he creates quite the parallel to Alice's father's statement of the best people being insane. Many things are still kept from the books, for instance the tea party. He also frequently asks Alice how a raven is like a writers desk. In all, Depp is probably the best thing about the movie, and so most deservedly earned that top bill.

Other acting was good, if not as deep as Depp. Carter is very campy as the evil Red Queen, something of a combination of characters from the Lewis Carroll books: The Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland and the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass. Whether screaming to off someone's head or in somewhat a more calm scene, It's difficult to take the Red Queen too seriously, as most of the actual evil is better displayed by her underlings, most notably Stayne, the Knave of Hearts. Stayne is properly portrayed by Crispin Glover, and matches a Burton character to a T, complete with heart-shaped eye-patch. Anne Hathaway is actually sort of disappointing as the White Queen, a seemingly air-headed beleaguered monarch who dabbles in something resembling voodoo or necromancy for her powers. Whether the ditziness is real or a show for her supporters is never revealed, but nothing Hathaway does in this film is very important, unfortunate for the actress who garnered such deserved praise in Rachel Getting Married. With so much CGI, there were multiple voice-only roles that were cast, and Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Alan Arkin, Barbara Windsor, Paul Whitehouse and Timothy Spall all deserve credit for their excellent contributions, even is Spall's character, a bloodhound named Bayard, doesn't seem to be based on any character from the books. Finally, Wasikowska is charming and elegant as Alice, the straight woman in a bendy world. Alice never fits in in either world, as she's too screwy to fit in the normal standards of the real world, and Wasikowska does a good job of playing that up, consistently expressing confusion and slow understanding up until she has to convincingly play the part of hero and becomes a strong woman of conviction by the end. She's arguably the early break-out female performer of 2010 and we'll see if this translates to her getting promising work in the future, or if she'll be relegated to being one of Burton's "favorites" and only work regularly in his films. She's too good for that, but Depp is too and he went for years before Hollywood took him seriously.

So what's wrong with Alice in Wonderland? Well, it doesn't run overlong, but what ending there is falls flat. It's as if everyone working on the project finished this big elaborate final battle (on a chessboard, no less) and realized: "Oh, crap, we have to end this movie!" And so it's rushed and obvious and not a little silly, including even Depp's little stupid dance. This can be largely credited to screenwriter Linda Woolverton, who's resume (consisting of Disney animated films and kid shows) doesn't exactly scream for confidence. To wrap up the bad ending, the closing credits began with this awful song who's singer I thought sounded familiar, but I wasn't sure. Alice was sung by Avril Lavigne, and it's just as bad - worse even - as you would expect from any Avril Lavigne song. I mean, DAMN, that's a bad song. I'd rather listen to Kenny G end this film than ever hear Lavigne again.

For most of it's 108 minutes, Alice in Wonderland is as interesting, thought-provoking and wondrous vision of fantasy as you'll find in the theater these days, but the mediocre ending does all it can to ruin that experience for you. Not even great special effects or a star cast can save it, as it's ultimately another disappointing film for Burton's library. This in itself is hardly a surprise, but would it kill Tim to try an original idea for once, as in the past ten years only Corpse Bride wasn't based on someone else's story. If he's going to keep piggybacking onto other people's works, he needs to figure out a better way of telling it his way without the messes to which that inevitably leads. For the message it pertains and strong feminine lead, another director perhaps would have been better.

But this is Disney, and they need their name recognition.