Movie review - "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" (2007) **

Gorgeous sets and photography. Great to shine some light on Chinese pirates. Some funny moments and imagination. Stunning visuals - all those boats, and the maelstrom. Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are fun.

Long. Flabby. Felt heartless. Took ages to get going. Starts of bleakly with lots of hangings including a kid. The "villain" is trying to rid the seas of piracy. This is bad because...? The villain is undercooked.

The film doesn't have a heart. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley's love should be the core. They don't like each other for the first hour for silly contrived reasons (he thinks she wants Johnny Depp - nothing wrong with a love triangle but it's set up poorly). Who cares about Orlando and his dad? I forgot Orlando in the movie.

The only time Keira seemed into Orlando was when he was leaving. Keira K is perhaps the most photogenic woman in cinema at the moment but her acting can be iffy and it is here.

Movie review - "Pirates of the Caribbean: On a Dead Man's Chest" (2006) ***

Johnny is fun. The script is solid, though it has a bit of Part 2-itis. It does feel overlong and bloated. Some very clever action sequences - a three way sword fight, spinning on the wheel. I like the writing better than the execution. It's ambitious. It tries to be a good film.

Problems in the first movie are exacerbated. Several characters remain underwhelming - Jack Davenport (and I like that actor) and the guy with a beard who is Depp's 2IC. I wish Tom Holland had done more - presumably he will in part three.

Orlando Bloom struggles even with the addition of a father. He and Keira Knightly seem monumentally disinterested in each other - they don't seem that keen in what's going on.

Heart. Maybe that's it - the film doesn't seem to have a heart. Best moment was the final kraken battle and Johnny D leaping into the creature. There were too few of those.

Movie review - "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" (2001) ***1/2

It's overlong and feels bloated - I normally really like Hans Zimmer scores but this one not so much. But the film has a touch of magic about it - it's spooky and atmospheric and genuinely scary. The idea to use the ghosts from the game was a splendid one.

There is Johnny Depp who is marvellous with his rock star swagger. Orlando Bloom is completely fine as the straight man which you need in a world of character actors. Keira Knightley is wonderful - stunningly beautiful and spirited. Geoffrey Rush is fun, as is his motley crew.

Too long and the action sequences feel heavy and cumbersome but all the ghost stuff is great (this is more a ghost story than an action pic).

Script review - "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio

Johnny Depp gets all the credit for the success of this franchise, and he brought a hell of a lot - but you know what? There are other actors who could've played the part: Robert Downey Jnr, Eric Roberts, Bruce Campbell. The part is so well written and clear.

It's a bright, fun, lively movie - simple to follow though it has some complexity (I got lost occasionally with the rules of the curse though it did all make sense). Will and Elizabeth are a bit dull but they kind of have to be so everyone else can shine. There's no real great romantic scene between them - there's more heat between her and Jack Sparrow. But a very good script with lively support characters and a believable world.

Movie review - "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales" (2017) **

I was in LA when this film came out. There was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for it - as if everyone was expecting it to be bad, and to make all its money overseas, which is what happened.

It actually starts brightly enough. Brenton Thwaites is ideal as a new Orlando Bloom - he's the son of Orlando and Keira Knightley who both reappear and there's some lively stuff in some colonial town with Johnny Depp trying to escape execution and a bunch of Australian actors in the support cast: David Wenham (who does a lot of period movies), Bruce Spence, John Leary.

The plot consists of chasing after the Special Thing, with Depp causing trouble for Thwaites and his love interest Kaya Scodelario, who has a kind of feminist character (she's being trialled as a witch because she believes in science) but the point is a bit ineffective in a film where she's basically the smurfette. I don't think she's as effective as Thwaites.

Geoffrey Rush returns and Javier Badem is there in lots of make up. I wish there had been more interaction between these two and Depp, and more character stuff involving Depp and the fact that Thwaites is Bloom/Knightley's son... there's a moment where he asks Thwaites if his mother calls out Depp's name at night which was great, I wish there'd been more of it. It's a shame Knightly only did a cameo I would've loved to have her along on the journey. Maybe more with Rush and his daughter - it was so tentative.

There's no character stuff. Pirates being wacky the leads being less fun. The support characters get a line or two.

We do get a lot of effects and stunts and spectacle and Hans Zimmer's wearying score. I know the post production people put in a lot of work but it all feels so familiar. I wish they'd set it somewhere a bit different at least.

Movie review - "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" (2014) **

Really, really annoying movie because once upon a time I was into Jack Ryan novels in a big way and I've always enjoyed the movie adaptations, but they completely stuffed it. There was nothing wrong with the idea of doing a Ryan origin story - sure, they'd already turned the movie of The Sum of All Fears into one, but why not do it again? But instead of using one of the best selling source novels, several of which remain unfilmed, they thought they'd come up with an original story - and it's a crap one.

It feels as though this was done on the cheap, too. I guess Chris Pine isn't that cheap, and Ken Branagh could probably charge a little more after Thor, and Keira Knightley must have been paid something to hold her nose - but surely Kevin Costner doesn't cost that much? There's not really many other prominent characters in the movie. Spectacle is thin on the ground - there is a decent chase through the streets of Moscow and later one through New York, but in general television does this a lot better.

TV does story telling better too - which here is noticeably poor. The biggest flaw more me is the character of Ryan. The whole point of Jack Ryan was that he was a guy next door, a pencil pusher and family man who occasionally got caught in amazing adventures - an antidote to James Bond. He wanted to be a soldier but couldn't after being injured - he went into finance and made a quick fortune, then turned to academia, which led to a career in the CIA. He had a bad back, a fear of flying, a strong Irish Catholic influence, a keenly developed sense of intelligence and history - it's an interesting character. He's not gung ho Mr Macho killer - that job is given to John Clarke.

And the movies had done a decent enough job of depicting that until now - he wasn't really an ordinary guy but he was an action movie genre's version of an ordinary guy. (This is why Harrison Ford was so good).

Here Jack Ryan is just another super hero. Which might have worked (though what's the point?) but the filmmakers try to have their cake and eat it too by having him say "I'm just an analyst" and "I'm just an ordinary person" a few times. Well he isn't. For starters he enlists in the army after September 11, which makes him a moron and not true to character. Then he finishes his PhD and joins Wall Street and becomes part of the CIA because of his ability to... read patterns?  Then he's sent on a mission to Russia and someone tries to kill him only Ryan gets in first in a ridiculous Daniel Craig James Bond type sequence.

This for me was the turning point of the film - when it showed that the filmmakers didn't have a vision. Because after that Pine/Ryan meets mentor Kevin Costner (played someone called Thomas Harper not in the novels... why not use John Clarke? Or Admiral Greer?) and goes on about how hard it was to kill someone the first time, you think "that's not true you found it easy, you looked like a bad ass". Then there's this horrible bit where Costner talks about his first time killing someone, an innocent bystander, and you're wondering how you're meant to take that character, who is a mentor but also distant, and there's no warmth (nothing to compare to what James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman brought).

Then we see Ryan "analyse" stuff - he really seems to brain storm and kick ideas around and guess what the baddies are up to without much proof, but he always guesses right. And for all his inexperience he manages to rescue Keira from assassins and then later on stop a terrorist by engaging in a motorbike chase and a fight on a moving truck. It's ridiculous.

So much of this is dumb. Keira Knightley looks beautiful but her role is horrible; they don't even show a courtship, just them meeting and bang they're in love - and she thinks he's having an affair (he ducks away to see Sorry Wrong Number at a revival house... way to go with updating the character), then she follows him to Moscow so she can be kidnapped (the best sequence in the movie to be fair) then she is rescued and doesn't do anything in the last third.

The action stuff lacks balls. Clancy never did - he set off an atomic bomb in the US in Sum of All Fears and had a plane crash into the White House in Debt of Honour (predicting September 11) and killed off leading characters. This is all tentative - all the goodies live the baddies die Wall Street is saved. No big stakes no nothing. It's annoying - because Ryan is such a good character who's had interesting adventures. But they completely stuffed it.

Movie review - "The Imitation Game" (2014) ****

The story of Alan Turing and Enigma is such a fascinating, rich one that it's no surprise to find it's already inspired books, plays, documentaries and movies... though I was surprised that no one has done the story properly as a film until now. It had so much to offer: a spy for the Russians, a tormented genius gay hero, genuine stakes, a woman in a man's world, incompetent leaders, treacherous secret service agents.

Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent in the lead - it's the sort of part he is perfect for: brilliant, showy, eccentric, tormented. There's strong support too from Charles Dance, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Mark Strong etc, particularly the kid who plays the young Turing, plus first rate evocation of Britain at the time.

The script is sometimes sublime but other times goes on the nose with a "spelling out the subtext" dialogue and scenes which were sometimes a bit too 'we are pumping this up for drama'. But a very good film.

Movie review - "A Dangerous Method" (2011) ***

Literate, smart and thoughtful entertainment almost entirely derailed by an appalling performance form Keira Knightley, full of ticks and gestures and erratic accent, like some bad acting grad fresh out of QUT who mainly got the role because she was really hot and willing to show a little nipple. David Cronenberg really should have pulled her under control - she's not remotely believable as someone capable of being a doctor herself. She's a film star trying to be an actor, and good for her, but she needed a month's more rehearsal and probably a director who is better with women.

There's excellent work from Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen (once you get used to his false nose) and Vincent Cassell (as a rock and roll lifestyle shrink - give into temptation, take drugs, sleep with your patients). Sarah Gadon is a completely blank canvass as Fassbender's wife. The most interesting character is Freud - smart, arrogant, not wanting to be questioned, more political than he seems.

Lots of ideas fly around, the main one being the difference in approach between Jung and Freud. It's treatment is a little stolid - at times I wished Peter Weir or someone more cinematic directed this, Cronenberg's approach feels stiff, as if he was intimidated by the pre-World War I-ness of it all and the literary quality of Christopher Hampton's script. It's very bright and clean and HD, something which didn't work for me (although I know others liked it). For all it's spanking scenes it is curiously unerotoic.

Movie review – “Atonement” (2007) ****

Keira Knightly used very well – an object of desire, not an overly difficult part of play but she does it well and she’s definitely a star. So, too, is James McAvoy – and that terrific girl who plays the intense Briony. Romola Gorai plays Briony later on, and she’s totally fine – but she’s blown away by her younger sister. A clever and moving story; you get angry and sad and surprised (Christopher Hampton wrote the script). The tracking shot during the Dunkirk sequence was a little show off-y.

Movie review – “Bend It Lie Beckham” (2002) ***1/2

One of the most sheerly likeable films of the decade, made with an infectious good nature that’s hard to beat. The two female leads are very sweet – Keira Knightly is inexperienced and a bit wonky but already has charisma. (I do remember one person who saw the film saying “what was that supermodel doing in the film?”) Jonathan Rhys Meyers has a role perfected suited to his talents, the non threatening leading man. (At the end he doesn’t get with the girl but plays cricket with her dad while she goes off with her best friend – is this a first generation immigrant girl’s fantasy?). I remember watching this scene in the cinema and when Rhy Meyers appeared in a coloured shirt there were these guttural grunts of appreciation from females around me. Bright music and colours. The script is a bit undeveloped here and there with probably a few too many subplots based on people being gay and an over-rushed finale but you’re having such a good time watching it that it hardly matters. Love the extraneous detour to Germany.

Movie review - "King Arthur" (2004) ****

I am the only person I know who really likes this movie. I know its got flaws - Keira Kneightly is a bit too smug, the comic relief support characters are clunky. But it's got such an inherently interesting world and story - the Romans are fleeing Britain, the Vikings are on their way and some soldiers have to make a decision whether to stay or leave.
That's a fantastic concept, set in a time which we see all too rarely on screen, and Antoine Fuqua excels with "guy on a mission" stories. Clive Owen has some unfortunate dialogue (mooning about an idealistic world of his dreams - actually a lot of the dialogue clunks) but he's got star quality and Ioan Gruffud-whatever-his-name-is compliments him nicely as Lancelot.
More perhaps could have been made of their conflict over Guinevere (Keira) - i.e. does she really like any of them? You get the feeling she likes Lancelot more but goes for Arthur due to political expediency - which is powerful stuff, could have been developed even further. There are strong action sequences, particularly the stuff with the ice. When Mads Mikkelsen takes on the head baddy at the end you want to go "don't do it - you're only a support actor, there's no way you'll survive this!"

Movie review – “Domino” (2005) ***

You’ve got to hand it to Tony Scott, although best known for his Bruckheimer epics like Top Gun he likes to march to the swing of his own beat and he’s done that with this tale of Domino Harvey, daughter of actor Laurence Harvey who became a bounty hunter. It’s a bizarre tale on one level – on another, I guess she’s just another rich kid seeking thrills on the dark side of life. Keira Knightley isn’t much of an actor and doesn’t really give a great sense of what makes Domino tick (the film doesn’t mention the real Domino’s 15 year drug habit, for instance, which I think explains a lot about her) but she is a star and you certainly watch her; she’s certainly better than Laurence Harvey was in his movies.

For a while this film seems like an exercise in stylistics rather than an attempt to create a story with characters we care about – Scott is mega-hyped up on visual pyrotechnics for this one, with far out camera angles, vision stock, sound, etc – but once it settles down into the “missing $10 million” story it is fine.

Great supporting cast, with Mickey Rourke terrific as the gnarled bounty hunter who basically hires Domino because she’s hot and will make him look cool, and nice work from Edgar thingy who plays the love interest. Two Beverly Hills 90210 stars, Ian Zering and Brian Astin Green, are good sports playing themselves – the scene where Domino punches Green in the nose is very satisfying for all those who couldn’t stand David Silver on the show. The ending is spectacular and unexpectedly moving. Nice touch with the end credits listing the actors only by their first names.

Movie review - "Pride and Prejudice" (2005) ****

Why another version of the famous story? This year alone saw Bride and Prejudice and the memory of the BBC series still lingers long. Perhaps Working Title wanted a sure-fire hit and/or a vehicle for hot new it girl Keira Knightley. Well, at least they had the decency to hire a director with a vision, for it works marvellously. Keira is not an automatic choice for Elizabeth Bennett and not the world's best actor but she has star quality (compare her with Rosamund Pike, who plays Jane, who doesn't have it). There is a superb support cast, every little part cast with top top perfection. The big screen is used to pick up little subtlies, such as the difference between the other sisters and the relationship between Mr and Mrs Bennett. (It shows he is a bit on the hopeless side.) Matthew MacFadyen has a star making turn as Darcy and it is filmed beautifully.