Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest – a review in words
Yes. I went and saw Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest last night. And yes, I enjoyed the movie, rather thoroughly, even though it did run a tad too long. And yes, I am sitting here writing about it because… well, I think you ought to know.
Last week, before the movie opened, I went to news.yahoo.com or CNN.com and found an early review of Pirates of the Caribbean. The reviewer prefaced his review by stating something like, “It takes a big man to admit when he’s wrong,” and then he proceeded to admit that he might have been wrong, and was not actually wrong, about his review of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. With that out of the way, he proceeded to lambaste and roast the new Pirates movie because it was too long, too boring, and too much like the namesake ride the movie’s are, loosely, based on.
Well, great. Glad that you, the professional critic, have the gall to admit that you might’ve been wrong about the first Pirates movie. I can’t wait until total box office receipts and DVD sales come back so you can admit how wrong you were when the next movie comes out and how right you are about how bad the third installment is. Because, and here’s the kick in the shins, the second movie is a good movie; not great, it doesn’t reach the level of the first movie, but dogonit, I liked it.
With the general, “I liked it,” out of the way. The movie does come in too long. I think director Gore Verbinski could’ve done a better job streamlining the story and getting rid of a lot of subplot that didn’t need to be there; but for the most part, I think it was a good movie that is definitely not suited for young children. Imagine the first one, with the skeletons. Disney, up until that movie, had never allowed a PG-13 movie to be released under it’s studio collar; and then comes Pirates of the Caribbean and they allow it through. The skeletons in the first movie were a bit disturbing. Admittedly, there was a time in my life where I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed the movie so much because these men, in the moonlight, turn into skeletons. Gross. However, in this second installment, instead of skeletons (don’t forget the monkey) you have men who’ve turned into weird looking sea creatures because they are indentured, in their afterlife, to Davy Jones. Davy Jones is the captain of the Flying Dutchman, (you can learn more, in general (don’t trust everything you read) at Wikipedia) and controls, for 100 years, the lives of sailors who agree to crew with him as he rules the Seven Seas. This plays a rather significant subplot, which is really underdone, throughout the movie.
Anyway, remove skeletons, add weird sea creature men, bring back Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow (which is the whole reason you go and watch the movie anyway) and have Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom return in their roles and you have a win-win movie at the theatres. People have been waiting for this movie. They were going to line up to watch it because… well… the first one was that good. And when you sit down to watch the movie I think it pretty much delivers – except, that is, when you start hitting on areas where it doesn’t. Like I said, skeletons are now undersea creatures, and subplots are not worked right or should be gotten rid of entirely. There was a feeling that Gore Verbinski was forced into bringing back some of the extra crew from the first movie, you know, the two idiots on the Black Pearl’s crew who are given all the crap jobs. The lowest of the low. Yeah, they’re back. They probably could’ve been left out, entirely and you can add two other crewmates to do the job they did. Too much time was spent with their antics to make them worth it. Neither actor is that good, and neither part that interesting.
On top of that, the movie doesn’t really end. Oh, sure, it ends. The credits role. But instead of doing a Pirates movie that is a stand alone, the director and producers of this movie are making the same mistake that other movies have been making of late. Specifically, they are telling a longer story over two films. You set up plot detail and plot detail and as a movie going audience the hope is that by the time the movie is over with, the plot details will all be resolved to some level of satisfaction; but in a two-part movie, you often don’t get the resolution that comes with a stand alone. And that’s where the weakness in this movie really comes into play – and the reason why it feels so long.
As a movie going audience the expectation is that there are certain cues that when something happens, soon, something else is going to happen. In this movie, Captain Jack Sparrow is afraid for his life. By the time you get to the resolution of that, and there are multiple resolutions, you are about two hours into the experience, including trailers and advertisements before the movie ever began, and you’re thinking, “What is going on here?” In this movie, you don’t get the resolution you are looking for. It starts off with certain elements, specifically, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann being arrested and that plays a role as a reason the characters are doing what they are doing, you never get to a point where there will be a happily ever after between the two. You go see a Pirates movie to see Jack Sparrow and you stay to find out what happens between Will and Elizabeth. That’s the secret to the first one. Jack does stupid things and comes out on top in the end, and Elizabeth and Will fight against all odds to end up together.
By splitting the plot into two movie, by the time you get to the end of the movie, you are left with a feeling that you haven’t gotten anywhere. The director just spent two hours taking me on a trip and there is no conclusion to the adventures and tragedies and you don’t get to find out that this character is alive, or why that character, you thought was dead, is alive, or why this other character, who you know is bad, is actually there (possibly running from the law) and the outcome is that you are left with far more questions than have answers through the plot of the story.
I think what would’ve been far better was to have the two movies (Pirates II and Pirates III) greenlit, then to have written two standalone scripts that play into each other but are not dependent on each other. In short, Disney should’ve done what the Indiana Jones movies have done. Each movie is a standalone. You watch all of the movies and you know a lot more about the characters, but you can watch any single movie without having to sit through all of them. The Star Wars movies are pretty much the same thing… well, when I say that I mean Episodes IV, V, and VI. The prequels were crap from the get-go and George didn’t understand what made his first three movies so good.
You know, I actually want to go back and re-watch this Pirates movie. I think that Disney has done something right when they created and have kept alive this franchise. I believe it is a viable franchise for the future and Johnny Depp has a character that people will really remember him for. Sure, he was good in Finding Neverland and… interesting… in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but all told, when people look back on this man’s career, someday, they will probably point to Captain Jack Sparrow as the penultimate example of his acting abilities. The character is that good.
All in all, I’d say Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest is a movie that is totally worth watching. However, I add one caveat don’t go expecting to see a complete story and realize that this movie is setting a really wickedly solid foundation for the next movie, and you will probably enjoy it. Also, if you have the chance, stay until after the credits… it’s not the same easter egg that was in X-Men: The Last Stand but it’s funny and worth waiting an extra five minutes for the theater to clear out.
Comments
I agree. Liked the after credits bit; just wondering if he knows what he's in for.
Posted by: Mila | July 17, 2006 3:28 PM