The Death of Depp
Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of
The Tourist
The Rum Diary
Dark Shadows
The Lone Ranger
Transcendence
and Mortdecai
Yeah, it's a day earlier than I said, but that's just because I love you all so much and not at all to do with the fact that I'm at a gig tomorrow night and won't be able to post this up.
It would appear that Johnny Depp's career has come full circle, with his mid-90's status as box office poison giving way to his 2000s success as a bit of juggernaut. Now though, he's back to box office poison territory. However, financial success has never necessarily been an indicator of quality (proof: last year's highest grossing film was Transformers 4), so is it a case of these films suffering an undeserved fate, or is Depp just getting everything he deserves?
There's a few directors who move from Oscar nominated (or even winning) foreign films to English speaking films of a much lesser quality. Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck is one of those names, as his film The Lives Of Others not only won the Oscar, but beat Pan's Labyrinth in doing so. Whether or not that was justified is a debate for another time, as a more questionable decision arose in that of Donnersmarck following that film with The Tourist. It's a film that now lives in infamy, as not only did it manage to garner three Golden Globe nominations, in spite of the palpable sense of disapproval directed towards it, but it also marks the part where Depp's career starts it's downward slide. For reference's sake, The Tourist is nowhere near the financial failure of the five films that will follow. In fact, it actually turned a profit. However, the film has got to be considered the turning point (along with the fourth Pirates film, which I'm saving for another time) in regards to a growing antipathy towards Depp. He plays American Maths (or Math, if you must) teacher, Frank, who is unknowingly selected by Angelina Jolie's Elise as a decoy for her con man boss. With his Venice holiday now consisting entirely of Frank running away from mobsters and police, he is left to deal with the consequences and (wait for it) hilarity ensues. The first thing I want to make clear is this: I don't hate The Tourist quite as much as everyone else seems to. It has some funny moments and both Depp and Jolie's performances are enjoyable enough. They may be overblown, but that's in keeping with the film's tone, so it's not really a flaw on their part. The really big problem lies in the actual plot of the film, as it all hinges on who Jolie's boss really is. The fact that he has recently had plastic surgery is supposed to help add to the mystery, but in reality, you'll have guessed who it is by the time the train pulls into Venice (that's about 10 minutes into the film). The script comes from Donnersmarck, the usually reliable Christopher McQuarrie and Julian Fellowes, who are all so cocksure of their film's intelligence, that they fail to notice how it derails itself more and more with every passing minute and nonsensical twist. Then, in director mode, Donnersmarck appears far too concerned with how beautiful everything looks, from the Venetian scenery to his two lead actors. In this respect, he succeeds on both fronts, but the vacuity to beauty ratio is on par with your average Miss World contest. The Tourist works to a point, then panics and screams for help, only to find that everyone would prefer to just move on and forget about the whole unfortunate episode.
TWO out of five
In case you didn't know, Depp was really good mates with Hunter S. Thompson. I only throw it out there in case you haven't heard the umpteen times that Depp has spoken about it. That's not a problem. I'm glad they were friends and it's equally touching that Depp wanted to adapt Thompson's novel as one final hurrah following his death. It's less great that he cocked it up. In a way, there's a lot of similarities between The Rum Diary and The Tourist. Both films start out good enough, but instead of building up to a great finale, they squander it and climax in an orgasm of self importance. Journalist Paul Kemp (Depp) begins work for a Puerto Rican newspaper and catches the eye of a local property dealer (Aaron Eckhart). Whilst this brings up work for Kemp, it also pulls him into some less than legal dealings (an evil property dealer in the movies? Never). This part of the story is the interesting part, as the corruption story may not be fresh, but it at least feels focussed. Eckhart is almost always good, despite the fact that the man clearly needs a new agent based on some the crap he's been forced into. Depp is also pretty good during these parts of the film because (and this is the crucial part) the character is sober during these scenes. Even when Kemp is hungover, Depp holds himself back, playing things fairly well down the straight and narrow (with the exception of the opening scene). It doesn't make for the most interesting character, but it does prevent him from overshadowing the scenes and the events around them. Sadly, Kemp is drunk, high or both for almost the entirety of the film's second half and this is where it becomes completely intolerable. The last half of this film is an incoherent mess, in which all sorts of weird drugs related stuff happens and it all leads us nowhere interesting. Eckhart's character is also kind of sidelined, as we're forced to deal with Depp going through a mopey crisis of conscience. We also get the films only look at some of the Puerto Rican locals, as they chase Depp and his partner (Michael Rispoli) away with guns… because that's what they all do. That really is everything The Rum Diary has to offer you. Maybe it's me just not getting it. I know bugger all about anything to do with Hunter S. Thompson (I haven't even watched Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas), so perhaps knowing where this would be headed might have helped, but the promising start notwithstanding, this didn't half irritate me.
TWO out of five
…speaking of annoying. In my previous post, I took a look at one of my favourite directors of all time in Tim Burton; saying that while the man has had his blips, I still hold a general affection towards his films. Dark Shadows is one of those blips and the biggest complement I can throw it's way is that I didn't hate it quite as much the second time around. This is Burton's revival of the old TV series of the same name: a series which seemingly holds zero nostalgia for residents of the UK, so I can only assume it meant something to the American audience. When Barnabas Collins (Depp) jilts the wrong lover (Eva Green in what must a career worst performance), he finds himself being turned into a vampire and locked in a coffin for nigh on two centuries. Waking up in the 1970s, he finds that the Collins name and business is a shadow of it's former self, now led by matriarch Michelle Pfeiffer (who's never seemed so bored). His job, it would seem, is to bring back that glory, but the rival family just so happens to be run by the (apparently immortal) lover that he jilted all those years ago. To it's credit, Dark Shadows knows that it's ridiculous and isn't out to prove otherwise. It is through and through a comedy, but it just isn't that funny beyond the odd solid one-liner. Along with Pfeiffer and Green, the performances are pretty poor too. Depp throws out the most stereotypical Depp-Burton performance you've seen, Chloe Grace Moretz is painful as the petulant teenager and all of the other characters aren't fleshed out enough to justify their appearance other than as background. The exception is Jonny Lee Miller, who's brilliant as the odious womaniser of the family, but there simply isn't enough of him in it. The film's biggest problem though is that everyone's convinced that they're still the outsiders here, particularly Burton, even though he graduated to A-List director when Alice In Wonderland broke a billion. A lot of the film's attempts to be different just feel like things Burton has done before and you can practically hear the back-slapping going on off camera. This isn't just one of Burton's weakest moments, it's taking the crown by a hefty distance.
ONE out of five
This is the point where Depp fatigue really starts to show itself. Dark Shadows didn't set the world alight, but still just about turned a profit. The Rum Diary didn't, but it was always a fairly niche market. Plus, the blame really lies at the feet of whoever thought that film needed a 45 million dollar budget. The Lone Ranger, however, is where Depp's star lost all of it's power. Speaking only in financial terms, this film was a complete disaster; Disney's second in as many years (the other was John Carter). But, does The Lone Ranger deserve it's place as the 4th biggest box office bomb of all time? Hell no. It's a film that is good enough and certainly nowhere near as bad as some of Depp's more successful films, despite the numerous issues. Narratively, the film is a total mess. It just about gets the origin story clear enough, as lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) awakens after his own murder, to find that he cannot be killed in battle (thus removing most of the film's tension when it comes to scenes where they want you to believe that he might die). Guided by Comanche guide Tonto, Hammer seeks to become a new face of justice and avenge the deaths of those who fell with him, including his brother. Beyond this, it all just gets a bit too expositionary and the plot isn't all that engaging. If you didn't know, Tonto, the Native American, is played by Depp. Apparently, he wanted to "right the wrongs of the past" when it came to treatment of Native American characters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd have thought the best way to do that would be by casting an actual Native American (not someone who thinks his Gran might have been one). This is a racial performance that would make Bernard Manning blush and though I'm sure no offence was intended, misguided is being polite. So, why am I saying the film doesn't deserve it's place in infamy? Because despite the numerous blips, it is still often quite a fun film. It's got it's amusing moments and Hammer plays the lead role very well. The villains aren't too bad as they played by decent actors in an old-school one-step-short-of-moustache-twiddling kind of way. There's three of them though and it's apparent how much one of them isn't needed. In the end, The Lone Ranger is a victim of the other films that convinced audiences that Depp wasn't someone to care about anymore. In that respect, it's not a wholly surprising fate and I'd be lying if I said that Depp will change those people's minds in this film. There is plenty else here though where, if you don't really think about what you're watching (and seriously don't try and make sense of the plot, it will give you a headache), there's worse things you could try. Though there are also shorter films you could try, so maybe go for them.
THREE out of five
Though it's most likely a by-product of the director's previous work with Christopher Nolan, I'm struggling to think of a directorial debut that's as confident in it's own greatness as Wally Pfister's Transcendence. Scrap that, I'm struggling of one that's as misguidedly confident. Transcendence is a boring film about artificial intelligence that made me wish I was watching something like The Terminator instead. This time around, Johnny is scientist Will Caster, shot and poisoned by a member of a radical group in protest against his plans to create a sentient computer. With little time left to continue with his work, he and his wife set about using his consciousness to create this computer. This is a success, but Will's ambition takes hold and before you can scream Skynet, his power grows greater and greater. On an aesthetic level, Transcendence succeeds every bit as much as it fails at most other things. Perhaps that was to be expected with Pfister's own previous career in cinematography, but the undeniably pretty visuals do little to compensate for the general failings elsewhere. The plot is predictable (particularly considering that the start pretty much gives away the ending) and this is made worse by the fact that no one seems aware of this. What it often thinks are twists feel like natural progressions of the story instead. I suppose that's better than an out of nowhere M. Night Shyamalan style twist that destroys all involvement with the story, but their predictability completely deadens any effect they may have had. The performances are moderately OK, but a lot just feel like standard performances from the respective actors. Paul Bettany, Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy's roles all feel like performances that they've done many times before. Rebecca Hall fares better as Caster's wife, Evelyn, but gets little to do other than cry, despair and sound scientific. Depp's performance is a peculiar one. He's realised that one of his offbeat roles isn't going to work here (as though it did elsewhere), but gets so laid back that he's almost catatonic. This would have been fine if it was just like that when he was in A.I. mode, but he's fairly similar when human, providing us with little to distinguish from how he was before he died. He was boring then, he's boring now. Why are you all getting so suspicious? Much like The Lone Ranger, Transcendence is not the shocker that it has been made out to be, but unlike …Ranger, it's not a film that's remotely concerned with being fun. Without that to fall back on, it's a bit of a slog.
TWO out of five
ONE out of five
Next Time (26th February)
No comments:
Post a Comment