Well, I went out to see Pirates of the Caribbean last night (by way of dinner by the Missuori river, a sports bar, and a casino--but that's another story), so I thought I'd put up something of a review.
But first, a disclaimer: if you want to like Pirates, don't continue reading this post. If you've already decided that you want to like the movie, then my comments will just frustrate you and help to ruin the experience. And there are some spoilers too. You are warned.
Dead man's chest perfectly achieves the very low standards that I am used to from Disney, and the even lower expectations I have for sequels. Truth be told, I thought Curse of the Black Pearl was going to be a flop and was amazed to find the gold within. The original was everything a pirate movie should be: fast paced, funny, sword fighting, boats, exotic landscapes, star-crossed lovers, intrigue, betrayal, and an invincible anti-hero pirate captain.
The sequel has most of the same elements--there is no lack of piraty-shaped things moving across the screen--but it feels gutted. The plot is intricate, but without a uniting factor and therefore confusing. The characters are colorful, but without character and therfore flat. The dialogue is boring and sappy, and therefore we know Disney hired their normal staff to write a p.c. script with 'progressive values.' Rather like the cursed bucaneers of the first movie, the movie walks and looks like a pirate, but it is acts like a corpse with makeup.
What really ripped the soul out of this movie is the radical deconstruction of the character of Capt. Jack Sparrow. Now, if I were making a sequel to a movie, I would try to capitalize on the strengths of the original. I don't think that there is any doubt that Capt. Jack was the most entertaining and sucssesful thing from Pirates. It baffels me, therefore, that they so absolutely reconstruct his character. Capt. Jack Sparrow was cocky,boastful, witty, aggravating, and insufferably proud. And so he should be--he's invicible. Nothing could stop this man. To quote the firs movie in the scene after Jack stole the commandant's flagship "that's the best pirate I've ever seen." Jack was all that, and he knew it.
Dead man's chest, however, strives to show Jack's vulnerable side. Because, of course, we need to see that even though he is the Legend of a Pirates, deep down he has terrible insecurities. All the bravado and manly show on the exterior is hiding a sweet, confused, and sensative person. He is really obsessed with his "moral compass" (to abstract an image I think they are using) and has some heart-to-heart talks with Elizabeth. I'm not sure how they could make him less heroic and manly--I suppose they could castrate him. Anyway, not surprisingly, he dies at the end of the film. Of course he doesn't really die, that's just the set-up for the thrid installment.
(A side note: in the first movie Jack Sparrow was the pinnacle of machismo and prided himself on being an overbearing, drunken, smart-ass pirate captain. Subsequently, he was adored by the female half of the population. Connection? I'm curious if his popularity will drop in response to reinterpretation of the second movie.)
On the upside, there were some moments I found genuinely entertaining. There was a three-way sword fight that was well choreographed. I think it ranks somewhere on the top ten sword fights of all time. There are also a couple of 'reformed pirates' who are constantly "redeeming" ships that no one seems to be watching, "removing temptation" (in the form of a treasure chest) from those around them, and other such "righteous" acts of theivery.
In conclusion, it's probably not worth your time or your money. If you've nothing better to do, it is relatively entertaining with a few high points, but for the most part, it's run aground and not really going anywhere interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Jeff here.
As always, I find you commentary insightful and appropriate. I saw the movie with Racheal Saturday and was very deflated. After Racheal asked me about what I did not like, I rattled off several comments equvilent to yours. She seemed generally disappointed that I did not find the movie good, only tolerable. I was very disappointed in their use of Jack. Such high hopes for this summer (X-men 3, Superman, Pirates) yet all seem to be underachieving. Though you can't tell by looking at the box office numbers. Pirates 2 surpassed Star Wars 3 as the biggest grossing opening weekend.
Hey, this is Amy.
Wow Matt, you really slammed Pirates. I was very pleased with Dead Man's Chest. Of course, I would have to see it again to be certain of several things, but I thought it had pretty much everything that a good movie should have, especially a good sequel. It was very entertaining. They had exciting and fresh action scenes. Even the characters on screen stood in awe at points, portraying, I felt, the same expression that had to be on my face at the moment. The action was great…it was original. The first Pirates is funnier, but Dead Man’s Chest is a lot darker in general. Sure, they could have made another movie with the same feel as the first, but that is usually how bad sequels get made. I’m not saying that they couldn’t have pulled it off. I also think that a lot of people would have been very happy with another just like the first.
However, so much of what I thought really set the film apart has to do with character and plot development. Where you see that Jack was portrayed inappropriately, I see it as displaying the complexity of his character. He isn’t just the eccentric, whimsical, Captain Jack Sparrow, he is much more than that. Can a life of piracy really be fulfilling? He is a very flawed hero, but I think that the changes that occur in Jack only perfect him. This is the transition film for his character…the compass. Jack doesn’t know what he wants. I think the next movie will reveal a lot about him. It does seem to make sense to me, Jack Sparrow must die and rise again in order to change and to truly understand himself. I’m not saying that Jack will be perfect when he comes back to life, but I do think that his compass will work properly. You have to look at the big picture anyway. Bad things always happen in the middle; that is how the plot develops. But it will all work out in the end, it always does. It really sets it up for another exciting movie. You know, I don’t think that it was just Jack Sparrow that was changing in this movie, but take a look at Elizabeth. Did anyone really expect her to deceive Jack? I understand the circumstance, but I didn’t think that was part of her character.
Anyway, I know this one wasn’t as funny, but I really did like it and I think it contributed a lot to the overall plot of the trilogy. I know that the old Captain Jack Sparrow was a lot of fun, but I’m not let down in any way that there really is more to his character than rum and swaggering remarks. Though, it is troublesome what Jack goes through, but hopefully it will be resolved and we will see a once again carefree Captain in the end.
I’m still not sure on a lot of things; I think I need to see it again. Brain and I (well, and my family and, coincidentally, a group of CSA people) saw it at the drive-in last Saturday. So, those aren’t the best viewing conditions anyway. It was a “Late Night, Double-Feature, Picture Show”, if you don’t catch the lyrics there, that’s ok, I don’t blame you. But, Cars was the following film. I also enjoyed that one, however I don’t really think it needs a review. I’d chat some more, but I think I’ve said enough. I hope things are going well for you! Bye!
Hey, this is Amy.
Wow Matt, you really slammed Pirates. I was very pleased with Dead Man's Chest. Of course, I would have to see it again to be certain of several things, but I thought it had pretty much everything that a good movie should have, especially a good sequel. It was very entertaining. They had exciting and fresh action scenes. Even the characters on screen stood in awe at points, portraying, I felt, the same expression that had to be on my face at the moment. The action was great…it was original. The first Pirates is funnier, but Dead Man’s Chest is a lot darker in general. Sure, they could have made another movie with the same feel as the first, but that is usually how bad sequels get made. I’m not saying that they couldn’t have pulled it off. I also think that a lot of people would have been very happy with another just like the first.
However, so much of what I thought really set the film apart has to do with character and plot development. Where you see that Jack was portrayed inappropriately, I see it as displaying the complexity of his character. He isn’t just the eccentric, whimsical, Captain Jack Sparrow, he is much more than that. Can a life of piracy really be fulfilling? He is a very flawed hero, but I think that the changes that occur in Jack only perfect him. This is the transition film for his character…the compass. Jack doesn’t know what he wants. I think the next movie will reveal a lot about him. It does seem to make sense to me, Jack Sparrow must die and rise again in order to change and to truly understand himself. I’m not saying that Jack will be perfect when he comes back to life, but I do think that his compass will work properly. You have to look at the big picture anyway. Bad things always happen in the middle; that is how the plot develops. But it will all work out in the end, it always does. It really sets it up for another exciting movie. You know, I don’t think that it was just Jack Sparrow that was changing in this movie, but take a look at Elizabeth. Did anyone really expect her to deceive Jack? I understand the circumstance, but I didn’t think that was part of her character.
Anyway, I know this one wasn’t as funny, but I really did like it and I think it contributed a lot to the overall plot of the trilogy. I know that the old Captain Jack Sparrow was a lot of fun, but I’m not let down in any way that there really is more to his character than rum and swaggering remarks. Though, it is troublesome what Jack goes through, but hopefully it will be resolved and we will see a once again carefree Captain in the end.
I’m still not sure on a lot of things; I think I need to see it again. Brian and I (well, and my family and, coincidentally, a group of CSA people) saw it at the drive-in last Saturday. So, those aren’t the best viewing conditions anyway. It was a “Late Night, Double-Feature, Picture Show”, if you don’t catch the lyrics there, that’s ok, I don’t blame you. But, Cars was the following film. I also enjoyed that one, however I don’t really think it needs a review. I’d chat some more, but I think I’ve said enough. I hope things are going well for you! Bye!
Hello again,
Sorry for posting twice, but I realized in my first post that I accidentally referred to Brian as Brain and I did not want him to get the wrong idea. Anyway, I thought it'd let me change it if I hit back and posted again, but it didn't.
You can add this mess-up to the list :) -Amy
Hey Matt-
Again, I wasn't impressed with Pirates, but I decided it was a good excuse to wear a cool costume. More on that. But it didn't seem right to do that to Jack.
Furthermore- I want to hunt down whoever is responsible for 'empowering' Elizabeth Swann. She's crossed the line from tolerably selfabsorbed to aggravatingly selfish. Not proper ladylike behavior at all.
"Late night, double feature, picture show" - not completely wasted, Amy, whether or not Matt picks it up.
I suppose I stand somewhere in the middle here. As a sequel to the first Pirates, I'm disappointed. But I'd heard enough about it already to expect to be disappointed, and going in with expectations that low, I came out thinking that without being a sequel it would have been a good movie. Except for the part where we'd all have been completely lost at both beginning AND end.
Well, it seems that I (Brian) owe a comment. The other end of the bargain would to owe Matt free drinks, and I don't think he's going to "parlay" about that.
Well, what to say about the movie that hasn't already been said? It's a popcorn flick - a dark popcorn flick - but that's still what is. I appreciated it a lot, but I'm not going to pretend I appreciate what others appreciate. I laughed more then anyone in the group I was in; but it wasn't clever lines that I laughed at, it wasn't necessarily even comedy. It was the joy I felt while watching all of the action role on by (pun intended). They must have fad a lot of fun making the first movie, and it worked wonderfully. They apparently decided to try for even more fun this time, and I for one, could accept (or, given my intellectual laziness, overlook) the substantial loss of a character's original essence when I was still presented with a movie that could be worth seeing just for the visuals and never before tried action sequences. Obviously both movies hit me differently though - I didn't recognize the difference in Capt. Jack Sparrow until Matthew pointed it out to me. Now I want to pose another question: does Dead Man's Chest hold up on it's own without its predecessor for reference? While we will never really know, I would say it would do pretty well. There is no doubt in my mind - the first movie was an anomaly, a wonderful anomaly. It is definitely better. Looking at so many other sequels though (need I mention the Matrix?); I am very satisfied with Dead Man's Chest.
Yes!! My highly controvesial review finally arrested the attention of my avid fan base thus providing an opportunity for stimulating and interesting reflections, reflecting the enthusiastic emotional, moral, political, social, aesthetical, tropological and intellectual responses regarding the movie and its implications. Joy of my heart!
Kudos to Amy--that was a full broadside retaliation, worthy of some consideration. I'll give the authors a little more credit now, even if I still believe them to be blundering idiots with distateful ideologies. (And if you are interested on my thoughts on ideologies, look back one of my first posts "Batman Begins")
Thanks to the many who pointed out the changing charecter of Elizabeth. I missed that, being so obsessed with Capt Jack. It is interesting that she becomes so prevelant and powerful as Jack becomes so meaningless--project whatever kind of social commentary on that as you please, especially because she ends up being highly manipulative and deceitful.
And just to set the record straight, I did say some complementary things about the movie too. Swordfighting = fun.
Now that I've had more time to think about this (that first comment was written immediately after returning from the theater), I want to add something.
I really do like the movie. I have no problem with the characters, even Elizabeth; I don't like her, but not all characters are likeable, and some people do act that way. If they wanted to make her look good and promote that sort of action, I'd say they failed. At best, by the end of the movie she comes across like a spoiled, bratty kid, and she doesn't stop with that. When we see her that way, is it really promoting anything? Well, perhaps to someone..
I wouldn't have minded if the changes to her (maybe.. I don't know, I wanted to like her, so probably still would have been disappointed there).. if the changes to Jack had been good character development. But if that was the intent then I don't think it was shown well. There would have to be more continuity with the first movie to begin with, more actually showing that he's rethinking some things and changing, instead of just throwing it at us. I want to see him change, not just see him suddenly acting differently. If there was a point where we were supposed to see that then it wasn't well written.
Jeff's gotta repost too! Couple of points based on everyone else's comments.
I will disagree with Amy (and others) who argue that the Captain Jack needs to show more darkness of character and be more serious to connotate depth as a character. To me, Jack was a pirate equivilent of Indiana Jones and Han Solo rolled into one and that's pantheon level hero territory! He the depth that Harrison Ford brought to those roles had to do with staying true to their character, not expanding (and I would argue, weakening) it. Think about the most tender scene in Empire Strike Back. Han is to be encased in carbon and given to the bounty hunter. Leia chooses this opportune moment to express her heartfelt love. "I love you!" she calls. Han's response was not a tender "I love you too!". Instead, he deadpans a simple "I know". That's the perfect character response for Han! Anything less would have made you question his heroic nature. He's definately flawed, but not in any heroic way. Jack should be the same. He's a coward at times, but in my estimation the movie would have been far better if the following occurred:
Jack was not locked up by Elizabeth. Instead, he should have known he had nothing to fall back on (the heart was gone), given some cocksure comment about never giving up the ship. He winks at Elizabeth to denote his realization that this is his sacrific moment (as per their previous discussion). He waits for the kracken's maw to expose itself, gets his hat back (ala Indy Jones) and jumps sword first into the beast to save them all.
You do this and you can more easily see why they would then choose to go to 'the ends of the earth' to save him. You could even have Elizabeth kiss him tenderly goodbye, though I though that was totally out of character for her.
Finally, there was one MOJOR plot hole that I can't figure out (or missed). What did Jack do 30 years ago? This clearly could not be when he was left on the island in the first movie. The timeline is all wrong. This is the driving force of the entire movie and we get no explaination? What's the deal here?
In closing, I agree with Brian (Brain, Pinkey, whatever we're calling him today) in that it was only a popcorn movie. But darn it the first one was a GREAT popcorn movie! This was just average. Why does Hollywood keep screwing up easy movies!
Jeff says:
By the way, I know I made spelling errors. Deal with it. And Matt, your logical statement is faulty. It should be written as:
swordfighting == fun (equivilency)
Though I suppose you wrote it the other way just so everyone else understood and it drove me nuts.
Minor comment from Brian: Jeff, I could have sworn it was 13 years, which is both believable and in keeping with the superstitious aspect of the pirates.
From Jeff:
OK Brian I looked it up and I agree its 13 years though after the movie I thought they said 30. The timeline fits. But I'm still bothered by the lack of information here. Jack becomes Captain of the Black Pearl by some means through Davy Jones but nobody knows who or why this pact was made? Jack's so down on his luck he cuts a deal with the devil? How and where do they meet? Who wouldn't consider this necessary for developing the plot as well as Jack's character? I have problems with movies where the key premise is not developed. I think everyone knows how much I hate Start Wars: Revenge of the Sith for its execution of Anakin 'turning' to the dark side (among many other faults). Why couldn't there have been 1 minute of expositionary dialogue that describes this interaction or some flashback to the moment of the deal. Jack could have seen the chest/key accidentally during the pact between himself and Jones, giving us the forshadowing that this is the lynchpin for the rest of the plot. Instead, we flounder around for 45 minutes trying to figure out what it going on.
So, I (Amy) get to post again! :) I liked what you had to say Jeff about Indiana Jones. There are some cool similarities. ..."We named the dog Indy"..."We named the Monkey Jack." =) I really think that Indiana Jones is an awesome hero character and I love those movies- that trilogy works really well, and I am sure that they could have done the same thing for Pirates. But I guess it doesn't really bother me that they didn't. All I can really say is that I know it is a movie that I will want to watch a lot...maybe not as much as I watch the first one, but then again, we all have our favorite Indiana Jones movie too, but that's a different story. After Jeff said something about Indiana Jones, I had to point out those movie quotes. :) Oh wow...sorry, I just realized something else. The middle Indiana Jones was Temple of Doom, also dark and scary, but also a movie where a man's heart is taken out of his chest. hmmm...I could probably try for more, but I really didn't want to say much, so that's all.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one bothered by that, Jeff. I had almost assumed that it was something from the first movie I'd forgotten, and making a deal with the devil.. what a thing to forget! Nice to know my memory isn't quite that bad. (*shudder* Anakin.. talk about problems writing characters.)
If they wanted to show another side to the character, they could easily have done it in connection with the background information and unless they did a really bad job of it (which I'm not ruling out completely) it would have made sense.
I'd hazzard a guess that they'll reveal this background information in the third movie. If that's the case, the writers and everyone else involved already knew what was going on, and it was probably a thoughtless error making the audience wait.
Post a Comment