jurassic world's not-so-hidden messages

There is no denying what a huge hit Jurassic World is — certainly the blockbuster of the summer, possibly of the decade. It delivers on all counts. It's thrilling, terrifying, fun, funny, and even a tad romantic. It's also a movie buff's dream, with nods to King Kong, Romancing the Stone, and even its progenitor Steven Spielberg's Jaws and Jurassic films.

Everyone in the audience and long lines waiting to get in to see it knows exactly what they're in for. There will be dinosaurs and there will be blood. The dinosaurs will look very cool. Kids will be threatened. There will even be a few "ooh" and "ahh" moments between scenes of carnage. There will be good guys — Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard. There will be cartoonish bad guy(s) — Vincent D'Onofrio and BD Wong. There will be a plot thread left dangling to make way for another sequel. In other words, pure summer popcorn entertainment.

Whose idea was it to use real dinosaurs again?

Safari fun - until somebody dies

Yeah, he's a movie star

While Jurassic World delivers on all these counts and then some, I couldn't help noticing that there were a few other messages floating through the mayhem.

Why are we so bored and spoiled? Jurassic World is presented as the ultimate theme park, but we are told that attendance is down because people just want bigger and better thrills. There is no actual evidence of this from the people who are visiting the park. They all seem to be having a grand old time, kids and adults alike. But the corporate sponsors want more danger, more excitement, and the park feels pressured to provide that, in the form of a deadly, new dinosaur.

Theme parks are dangerous and expensive. How much exactly would it cost to visit Jurassic World? You have to fly to a remote island and stay on-site at a costly hotel. Park admission would not be cheap, certainly with hidden costs for special animal encounters. And all of the food, souvenirs, and shopping would be bound to be ridiculously expensive. Sort of like going to Disney, but with longer, sharper teeth.

Technology is killing us. No matter how thrilling the park might be, the majority of its attendees spent a lot of time experiencing it through their smart phones, either taking photos, or ignoring what's around them altogether. This point is made most strongly through the brutal demise of Claire's (Howard) assistant (Katie McGrath), who is attacked by no less than three dinosaurs, all while never dropping her damn product placement phone. The two main kids' (Claire's nephews) phone is crushed and discarded by the big bad dinosaur, rendering Claire's own phone useless as a way to contact them. And does our hero Owen (Pratt) even have one? Claire doesn't or can't call him, but has to drive out to his Luddite's dream of a shack to find him, far away from the high-tech lab, offices, and park where she resides. No wonder he is the only one to trust when the going gets deadly.

And about that product placement. No one in movies has embraced product placement perhaps more than Steven Spielberg. But here that impulse is turned on its head, with all the Starbucks cups and boutique stores lining the shopping area of Jurassic World seeming crass and over-the-top. A little too reflective of our consumerist present, perhaps. How did we get here and why do we need all of this stupid stuff?

Whether you are looking for the subtle critiques of our modern lives, or just in the mood for some slam-bang action, Jurassic World definitely delivers. And Chris Pratt proves that Guardians of the Galaxy was not a fluke. He's this generation's Harrison Ford and then some.

throwback - 70s paperback books based on movies - thursday

Movie novelizations were a big thing when I was a kid. I remember everyone reading the books of the top movies that were out, whether they saw the movie or not. Not surprisingly, these were all horror or science-fiction novels.

I read each of these books, some which preceded their film versions.

The Deep — I think my dad like Jacquie Bisset (and her wet t-shirt) so much he took us all to see The Deep, although we never saw Jaws, which also started as a book by Peter Benchley. I'm pretty sure I read that one too, but this made more of an impact on me, with the sex and the archaeology subplot of the young couple finding undersea treasure.

Jacqueline Bisset and Nick Nolte in The Deep

Close Encounters of the Third Kind — Everyone had to see this film, with Richard Dreyfuss unforgettable as a regular guy whose life is changed by a very special alien encounter. Who could forget the mashed potato Devil's Tower? I guess I had to relive the movie with this novelization, which credits Steven Spielberg as the writer.

Stephen King's Carrie got passed around my Civics class. I'm not sure I read the whole thing, but I do remember the infamous girls' locker room period scene.

The Omen — This book was actually very scary, and I loved trying to unravel the supernatural puzzle along with the protagonist, Ambassador Thorn, played by Gregory Peck in the movie.

Lee Remick tries to shield Damien (Harvey Stephens) in The Omen

Dracula — Where it all changed for me was falling for Frank Langella's sexy Count Dracula on film and then wanting to read the original Bram Stoker novel. This was no mere movie novelization, but an introduction into gothic horror, which I still love to this day.

throwback (halloween) thursday: poltergeist

The kid and I just watched this again recently and it still holds up, not just as a great scary movie (which it is), but a great movie. Here is my take on it, originally published in 2011.

they don't make 'em like this anymore —poltergeist

Poltergeist is so effective a movie that its easy to forget how damn good it really is. All one has to do is try to think of another recent horror movie that captures a time with such a winning combination of special effects, thrills, real scares, and deep feeling. None come to mind. The movie industry has come far in the past thirty years with CGI and other special effects. But it is undeniable that as polished, accomplished, and shiny as films look today, they have lost a sense of reality, of heart.

1982's Poltergeist opens with a wonderful montage of modern suburban American life — kids hanging out (unsupervised) in their neighborhood, pulling pranks, having fun. Inside the home Star Wars bed sheets and other toys litter a child's room and speak of a comfortable, media-savvy life. The story quickly follows a family of five, the Freelings — Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Diane (JoBeth Williams), teenage Dana (Dominique Dunne), and younger kids Robbie (Oliver Robins), and Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke), who live in a two-story house in the Cuesta Verde development where Steve is the real estate agent — the Freelings were actually the first family to move into the neighborhood.

The youngest child Carol Anne is the first of the family who seems to know that everything is not normal in their house, especially when people start talking to her from the family's television set, "They're here." Things quickly get ghostly, and it is fun for both the audience and the family to see evidence of their unusual visitors. Hip mom Diane is thrilled at first, even devising a game with their unseen guests in the kitchen. But things quickly take a sinister turn, and during a stormy night Robbie is attacked and Carol Anne disappears somewhere inside the house.

At first the ghosts are all fun and games

But the mood quickly changes, complete with a creepy clown doll

Hip mama turns into fierce warrior to protect her family from supernatural forces

Poltergeist is legitimately scary, not just slasher or torture porn like so many recent horror flicks. It actually has a subtext: the rampant overdevelopment of Cuesta Verde, built over a graveyard without moving or honoring any of the dead, has had dire consequences. Suburban progress may try to erase the past, but at what price?

Steve (looking over the site of a new development in Cuesta Verde), "Not much room for a pool, is there?" 

Teague (Steve's boss, played by James Karen), "We own all the land. We have already made arrangements to relocate the cemetery." 

Steve, "You're kidding. Oh, come on. I mean that's sacrilege, isn't it?" 

Teague, "Don't worry about it. After all, it's not ancient tribal burial ground. It's just ... people. Besides, we've done it before."

For years there have been conflicting reports about whether Tobe Hooper actually directed the movie, or Steven Spielberg, who came up with the original story and worked on the screenplay and was one of the producers. Spielberg didn't help matters any by saying:

"Tobe isn't ... a take-charge sort of guy. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump in and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that become the process of collaboration." — Douglas Brode, The Films of Steven Spielberg. New York: Citadel Press, 2000, p. 102.

The special effects are quite good for the time, not just in execution, but originality. It still strikes the viewer as clever how the "ghostbusters" create a paranormal path through the house to find and rescue Carol Anne. Hooper gets director credit, but Spelberg's influence is apparent throughout the film. Perhaps Hooper's laid-back nature helped minimize Spielberg's usual sense of wonder, which at times can get a little forced or syrupy.

Poltergeist has heart, but it also has menace, a feature lacking in Spielberg films. The only bum note in the film, however is pure Spielberg — the scene in the bathroom with one of the parapsychologists that the Freelings call in to help find their daughter, where hands pull his face apart in front of the bathroom mirror. Like the melting Nazi from 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, a scene just put in to show off and gross out the audience. According to imdb, the hands used in the shot were actually Speilberg's, too.

Poltergeist has all the elements of a classic horror film. An innocent but spooky little girl, clever dialogue, a creepy clown, a highly original character, Tangina the ghostbuster, played by Zelda Rubinstein. But what really makes Poltergeist special and eminently re-watchable are the characters. JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are wonderful and sexy as the parents. Their love for each other and their children is so strong you believe they could go to hell and back to get their kid. Rumors of a remake have been circulating for a few years. There is actually a page for the remake on imdb, which makes it seem more real. If this does eventually happen, it is highly unlikely that it will be anywhere near as good as the wonderful original. The last scene, when dad Steve pushes a television set out of their motel room is brilliant, and needs no updating. Poltergeist is definitely a classic, and I think, Spelberg's best film.

they don't make 'em like this anymore — poltergeist

Poltergeist is so effective a movie that its easy to forget how damn good it really is. All one has to do is try to think of another recent horror movie that captures a time with such a winning combination of special effects, thrills, real scares, and deep feeling. None come to mind. The movie industry has come far in the past thirty years with CGI and other special effects. But it is undeniable that as polished, accomplished, and shiny as films look today, they have lost a sense of reality, of heart.

1982's Poltergeist opens with a wonderful montage of modern suburban American life — kids hanging out (unsupervised) in their neighborhood, pulling pranks, having fun. Inside the home Star Wars bed sheets and other toys litter a child's room and speak of a comfortable, media-savvy life. The story quickly follows a family of five, the Freelings — Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Diane (JoBeth Williams), teenage Dana (Dominique Dunne), and younger kids Robbie (Oliver Robins), and Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke), who live in a two-story house in the Cuesta Verde development where Steve is the real estate agent — the Freelings were actually the first family to move into the neighborhood.

The youngest child Carol Anne is the first of the family who seems to know that everything is not normal in their house, especially when people start talking to her from the family's television set, "They're here." Things quickly get ghostly, and it is fun for both the audience and the family to see evidence of their unusual visitors. Hip mom Diane is thrilled at first, even devising a game with their unseen guests in the kitchen. But things quickly take a sinister turn, and during a stormy night Robbie is attacked and Carol Anne disappears somewhere inside the house.

At first the ghosts are all fun and games

But the mood quickly changes, complete with a creepy clown doll

Hip mama turns into fierce warrior to protect her family from supernatural forces

Poltergeist is legitimately scary, not just slasher or torture porn like so many recent horror flicks. It actually has a subtext: the rampant overdevelopment of Cuesta Verde, built over a graveyard without moving or honoring any of the dead, has had dire consequences. Suburban progress may try to erase the past, but at what price?

Steve (looking over the site of a new development in Cuesta Verde), "Not much room for a pool, is there?" 

Teague (Steve's boss, played by James Karen), "We own all the land. We have already made arrangements to relocate the cemetery." 

Steve, "You're kidding. Oh, come on. I mean that's sacrilege, isn't it?" 

Teague, "Don't worry about it. After all, it's not ancient tribal burial ground. It's just ... people. Besides, we've done it before."

For years there have been conflicting reports about whether Tobe Hooper actually directed the movie, or Steven Spielberg, who came up with the original story and worked on the screenplay and was one of the producers. Spielberg didn't help matters any by saying:

"Tobe isn't ... a take-charge sort of guy. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump in and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that become the process of collaboration." — Douglas Brode, The Films of Steven Spielberg. New York: Citadel Press, 2000, p. 102.

The special effects are quite good for the time, not just in execution, but originality. It still strikes the viewer as clever how the "ghostbusters" create a paranormal path through the house to find and rescue Carol Anne. Hooper gets director credit, but Spelberg's influence is apparent throughout the film. Perhaps Hooper's laid-back nature helped minimize Spielberg's usual sense of wonder, which at times can get a little forced or syrupy.

Poltergeist has heart, but it also has menace, a feature lacking in Spielberg films. The only bum note in the film, however is pure Spielberg — the scene in the bathroom with one of the parapsychologists that the Freelings call in to help find their daughter, where hands pull his face apart in front of the bathroom mirror. Like the melting Nazi from 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, a scene just put in to show off and gross out the audience. According to imdb, the hands used in the shot were actually Speilberg's, too.

Poltergeist has all the elements of a classic horror film. An innocent but spooky little girl, clever dialogue, a creepy clown, a highly original character, Tangina the ghostbuster, played by Zelda Rubinstein. But what really makes Poltergeist special and eminently re-watchable are the characters. JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are wonderful and sexy as the parents. Their love for each other and their children is so strong you believe they could go to hell and back to get their kid. Rumors of a remake have been circulating for a few years. There is actually a page for the remake on imdb, which makes it seem more real. If this does eventually happen, it is highly unlikely that it will be anywhere near as good as the wonderful original. The last scene, when dad Steve pushes a television set out of their motel room is brilliant, and needs no updating. Poltergeist is definitely a classic, and I think, Spelberg's best film.

tintin (yawn) goes on an adventure

The Adventures of Tintin was ... OK. I am SO glad I didn't spring for 3D or IMAX or any of the other wallet-gouging gimmicks, because then I would be really pissed. It has a nice beginning, and then a really slow and frankly boring middle, a great chase scene which could have wrapped up the movie, and then it continues for at least another half hour — it's just too damn long for a cartoon.

And no matter what skill went into creating Tintin (and they are formidable), the bottom line is that it is a cartoon. And a strangely disjointed one at that. The animation of our hero Tintin is incredible - the care taken to make his skin, hair, and even fuzzy sweater look real. Some of the same care is exhibited in the creation of the mise-en-scène. And then there are the other characters — Captain Haddock, Tintin's intrepid terrier Snowy, the comic police duo of Thomson and Thompson — all very cartoony and exaggerated in their looks and movement. Did Spielberg want to remind us we were watching a cartoon, or did he just have his animators spend extra time on Tintin?

Motion capture has come a long way since the creepy characters of Polar Express, but for the most part, we are still looking at cartoons, which, the more 'realistic' they become, somehow become even less and less human. A line-drawn Bugs Bunny can still express more personality with a stylized smirk and eyebrow than the exquisitely rendered Tintin. I couldn't help but wonder why anyone involved in making the movie didn't step back a moment and ask themselves — why are we hiring tons of computer geniuses and animators to do what we have already done in live action movies — thrilling chase scenes? As cool as the scene is with Snowy and Tintin dodging cars as they try to pursue a pickpocket through busy traffic, wouldn't that have been three times as thrilling if they had pulled that off with stunts and live action?

Daniel Craig on his motion capture experience (from Esquire Magazine): "Craig reports that he's pleased by the final product, though he says it's hard to remember what he expected, since they filmed his part two years before. 'We shot it in mo-cap. Which is like: Fuck me, I'm literally in a leotard with a fucking helmet on, and a camera strapped to it. It's Steven Spielberg, so every fucker in the world comes to visit. Fincher comes to visit. Clint fucking Eastwood comes to visit. It was just like, are you kidding me? I'm gonna meet these people dressed like this? Playing a pirate, wearing a leotard and a camera? Really?'"

The plot of The Adventures of Tintin concerns search for treasure involving an ancestor of Captain's Haddock. Tintin, who can't resist a good story, pursues answers while constantly exposing himself to danger on the sea, in the air, and on land. I found the story and mystery pretty lacking and uninvolving. I know it was just an excuse to create some set pieces, but this is Spielberg and Peter Jackson and Steven Moffat. They should have come up with a better mystery. And they didn't "dumb it down" for kids. the movie is hardly for kids at all. Tintin has gunfights and gets into some real peril that little kids would find quite frightening.

Good points: There are some very funny moments and some great risky chase scenes, especially featuring Snowy who really steals the show. The voice talent is also good. Jamie Bell does a nice job with Tintin, as does Andy Serkis and Daniel Craig, with Captain Haddock and the villain Sakharine. The opening credit sequence is fun and full of original Tintin images, and there is a nice homage to illustrator Hergé in the first few moments of the film.

There also was not one significant female character. An opera singer is brought on near the end, but she is clearly a figure of fun and not a character anyone could relate to. Little girls might feel a bit left out with this movie. The only character they might get excited about would be Snowy. This is of course not Spielberg's fault, as he is staying close to Hergé, and Tintin is the ultimate boy adventurer. Girls do love Tintin comics, so maybe this won't be such a problem.

So who exactly is The Adventures of Tintin for? Fans of the comic may have a problem with all of the "realistic" animation. Kids younger  than seven are really too young for it. Kids seven to eleven might be bored by the mystery (I have to admit that the over-long sequence in the dark and not very visually appealing ship's hold had my eyes closing and my head nodding at times. Kids eleven and up are probably at the latest Mission Impossible.

The chase scene set in Morocco is of course making everyone compare Tintin to Indiana Jones There are some Rube Goldbergian aspects to the chase that bring those movies to mind, but it also made me immediately think of Kung Fu Panda 2's recent rollercoaster-like chase scene. I guess it's hard to be original, even for Spielberg.

My take-away:

Two hours is way too long for an animated film (especially one without much of a plot).
Motion capture can be cool — in very small doses. The longer you look at it, the creepier the characters become.
Why did Spielberg feel compelled to release two family films around the holidays that can't really be viewed by the whole family?
I am looking forward to viewing the Tintin DVD I got my mom — with animation that looks more like the original Hergé illustrations.

I asked the kid critic, which did you like better ...

Tintin or Arthur Christmas? She answered Tintin. For me it's Arthur Christmas, hands down.
Tintin or Sherlock Holmes? Sherlock.
Tintin or Tangled? Tangled.

rock 'em sock 'em jackman

Article first published as Movie Review: Real Steel on Blogcritics.

Charlie (Hugh Jackman) is a loser, a has-been boxer who never was. In Real Steel, set in the not-too-distant future of 2020, boxing has changed - robots have replaced humans in the matches, so that they can become even more violent, and Charlie is leading a hard-scrabble life of trying to get bouts for his robot at sixth-rate venues like state fairs and underground arenas.

Real Steel shouldn't be as entertaining as it is. There is a nod in the credits to a Richard Matheson story, "Steel," as being an inspiration for the film, but anyone can see from the previews that it is a live-action version of the '60s toy, Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots. Strangely, that ends up being a good thing.  For the same reason that the old TV commercial for the toy is indelibly etched in so many of our minds, there is a bit of a nostalgic thrill whenever the robots appear in the movie. You could never get me to see a Transformers film, but my 7-year old was able to persuade me to see Real Steel. Maybe Hugh Jackman had something to do with getting me to the theater, too.

Charlie left his girlfriend 11 years ago, relinquishing all rights to their son, Max. The mother has now died and Charlie has made a deal with Max's aunt and her rich husband that he will watch him —  just for the summer — for a fee — and then surrender custody. Real Steel borrows heavily from many classic boxing movies like Rocky and The Champ. It's also got the "boy and his dog" appeal of a film like ET (Steven Spielberg is an executive producer of Real Steel) and of course, The Iron Giant. The places where Charlie and his son Max (Dakota Goyo) take Atom to fight have a Mad Max/Thunderdome feel about them. Kids won't really get how far down through 2020's social stratas Charlie keeps descending, and how Max and Atom help him back up, step by step, but their parents and chaperones will. Real Steel keeps Charlie gritty and grimy. Its twin protagonists, Charlie and Atom, must crawl up through the mud — sometimes literally.

All the scenes with the robots and Charlie and Max are great. The combinations of real robots and animated ones are seamless. As Jackman has been quoted, "It's amazing that in this world where I'm used to a green screen and a stick with a tennis ball on it [to give an actor a visual target of where a CGI element will be inserted later] that Spielberg actually said to Shawn [Levy, the director], 'You should really have real elements where you can.' ... Basically, if they're not walking or fighting, that's a real robot." Sugar Ray Leonard is also credited as an advisor to the fighting sequences, which helps with the feeling of authenticity.

Real Steel features a subplot of the estranged father and son getting to know one another.  The movie doesn't tie up all the emotional loose ends in the tidy, unrealistic knot of Charlie embracing fatherhood, but we do feel that Max will get to spend some more time with Charlie and Atom in the future, after their summer adventure.

For the most part, Real Steel is just a lot of fun. Jackman is always physically impressive, but he has some nice, quieter scenes with both Max and his current on-off girlfriend, played by Evangeline Lilly. There are some over-the-top annoying product placements, but they are amusingly presented — after we watch Max guzzle prominently placed can after can of Dr. Pepper, Charlie scowls and criticizes the kid, who is bouncing off the walls from the caffeine — "You drank all that soda?" There's something very real about Charlie and Atom and Real Steel that keeps it appealing.

who needs PG-13 anymore?

Article first published as Who needs PG-13 anymore? on Blogcritics.

Both Thor and the just-released Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides movies are rated PG-13, but who are they kidding? They are also both marketed heavily to the kiddies. At our local multiplex, there was a special Pirates promotion going on this opening weekend with face painting, balloon animals, Renaissance Fair-style role-players and Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and Blackbeard (Ian McShane) impersonators.

Clearly plenty of parents were taking under-13 age children to the movie (myself included.) So why did the film have a PG-13 rating? Wasn't PG enough? A parent has to decide either way whether to take their kid to the movies. That's the parental guidance part. On any website today you can get an itemized list of content that might offend (violence, sex, drugs, drinking, language). So why bother with trying to (over) specify the rating?

After seeing Pirates, which did include some (not graphic) deaths and scary creatures (mermaids) I don't think that it had anything too scary for my seven-year old daughter. I told her as we went in that if anything was too frightening for her, she could cover her eyes, hide behind me, or we could duck out for a few minutes, but that was never really necessary. She did grab me for some of the fight scenes, but overall she enjoyed it. And sometimes being scared and cuddling with mom or dad is part of the fun. If there was anything that did bother her about the movie, it was that a few of the plot points were left dangling and open for the next movie. But that's just how movies are today, which I explained to her — they want you to come back and see what happens to Captain Jack Sparrow next time.

I used to watch scary movies on TV all the time when I was probably "too young" for them — that is, her age. I distinctly remember being allowed to stay up and watch a vampire movie with my dad and going to bed scared that night, wearing my bathrobe over my nightgown, convinced that if my neck was covered up a vampire couldn't get me. And these weren't sparkly teen vamps, this was a B&W creepy Count Dracula. Most fairy tales are full of scary things — witches and wolves that eat little pigs and little girls that favor the color red.

I don't think parents should be irresponsible. My daughter has seen the first three Harry Potter movies and that's it. She loves the kids and other characters and is rightly frightened by Voldemort — we usually skip those scenes on the DVD. The same goes for another film she adores, the first Lord of the Rings. She is in love with Frodo, but wants to skip the Orcs. Frankly, I feel the same way about the Orcs — they are unnecessarily gross make-up wise. Director Peter Jackson could have scaled them back visually a bit and they still would have been scary. But back to Potter — I haven't let her see the fourth Potter film and beyond because the emotional content gets more mature. Characters start dying, and not just the Cowboys and Indians sorts of deaths that kids role-play and are familiar with, as in this latest Pirates movie, but deaths of people that they have grown to love — I still find Cedric's death in Goblet of Fire very upsetting. Movies with tear-jerking moments can be cathartic — for adults, but kids don't really need that level of sadness from a movie.

Apparently we have filmmaker Steven Spielberg to blame for the ridiculous distinction between PG and PG-13. In 1984, "Spielberg … advocated the creation of the new rating. The proposed change, however, has been opposed by MPAA President Jack Valenti. He argues that the current system is working well enough and that adding more classifications would cause more confusion. 'Who is smart enough to say what is permissible for a 13-year-old and not for a twelve-year-old?' Valenti asks. 'Who can draw that line?'" Valenti either changed his mind or caved in, as the rating began to be applied to films that year and ever since.

But does the PG-13 rating really apply to the latest Pirates movie? From the MPAA's definition of PG-13:

Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. (None)

More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. (The mermaids are topless, but no nipples are shown, their long hair or the water covers them, so, none)

There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. (Pirates has lots of sword fights and some deaths, but none too graphic. There are sword wounds with a little blood, as in an old Errol Flynn pirate flick.)

A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous. (There were no curse words that I recall. There was some mildly sexy banter between Captain Jack and Angelica (Penélope Cruz) referencing their prior relationship, but nothing explicit.)

I think that Hollywood should just drop the silly PG-13 rating. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a family movie. I know, that's a bad word for some, but too bad. Sometimes I wonder if films now use PG-13 as a ratings opportunity to attract the adult audience. Do the studios think a plain PG will turn off grown-ups who don't want to go to a kiddie film? Does PG-13 make it just a tad cooler or less, well, PG? As the line-up of Pirates toys and related merchandise in Target and other stores attest, the film's rating, in this case is beyond meaningless.

Related articles

• Who Needs PG-13 Anymore? (blogcritics.org)