Or, to go by its full title, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End."
Kath and I have seen it twice. The first time I liked it. Second time I loved it.
Spoilers follow:
I have to say, when I see people complaining that the film (and its predecessor) is difficult to follow, it makes me feel better over fans making the same slam at my work on, say, "Supergirl."
Because I had zero trouble following "Dead Man's Chest" and even less here.
Whereas DMC was essentially a series of spectacular set pieces strung together through a sometimes uneven narrative, PC3 builds more steadily, driven less by events than by character development, shifting alliances, and double and triple crosses. Wonderfully acted by actors who were clearly having a great time (well, maybe not so much when fifty tons of water was hammering them during the climax, but otherwise...), well written with no moment so epic that they couldn't mange to throw him some little bit of business of a smaller, personal nature, and amazingly directed. Much will be made of the astounding battle in the maelstrom with Jack Sparrow dueling Jones atop a beam, but for my money the single most amazing sequence in the film is when a stunned Lord Beckett is walking down the steps of his ship in slow motion while it literally explodes all around him, yet he remains unscathed.
Are there things that bugged me? Yeah, some. Yes, there were hints to Tia Dalma's true nature in the previous film, but the entire Calypso thing could have been set up better in the second film...and considering they were shot at the same time, there's no excuse for not having done so. It also stunned me to learn that the kraken, such a major part of the second film, died in between movies.
But for every gripe, there's something to balance out. The sequence with Elizabeth hysterical over the fate of her father, or the wrenching fate of Will Turner, or the hilariously phallic battle of Jack Sparrow and Barbossa's telescopes. And Keith Richards perfectly utilized as Captain Teague, Jack's father. I swear, I'd be happy watching an entire film with the two of them.
Overall I thought it was brilliant. And if you saw it and didn't stay through to the end of the credits, then wow. Sucks to be you.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 2, 2007 03:17 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI also loved the movie, although I didn't really like Keith Richards. I think he must have been a fairly poor actor given that they only gave him about a dozen words to say and left most of his screen time to shots of him sitting around looking bored.
I wasn't as put off by the off screen death of the kraken because an earlier line indicated that Lord Beckett forced Jones to kill it. What did annoy me was that the Black Pearl just happened to stop for water on the same exact island that held the kraken's corpse. Of course, the entire series is known for that sort of coincidence.
What do you make of the revelation by the screenwriters that the powers-that-be cut scenes detailing the fact that if Calypso had remained faithful to Davy Jones, he would've been freed from the Flying Dutchman? But, she wasn't waiting for him after ten years, so...
Kind of puts the ending in a new light, I think.
Also, it was interesting to note that the screenwriters didn't know about these edits until after the movie had been released.
In total agreement with ya on this one PAD. The Newsweek write up made me wonder if the joker had even watched the movie. I liked the way Jack's plan from the start was immortality and he is within grasp of it here, yet chooses will's life over his own. That was great, and the idea that now Jack is back on the hunt for immortality is superb.
I had to leave before the credits because I had two of my youth (one of whose parent had died that week and I was trying to keep in touch) and they were ready to go after three hours. I was afraid it had something extra That I would miss.
In total agreement with ya on this one PAD. The Newsweek write up made me wonder if the joker had even watched the movie. I liked the way Jack's plan from the start was immortality and he is within grasp of it here, yet chooses will's life over his own. That was great, and the idea that now Jack is back on the hunt for immortality is superb.
I had to leave before the credits because I had two of my youth (one of whose parent had died that week and I was trying to keep in touch) and they were ready to go after three hours. I was afraid it had something extra That I would miss.
I agree. This film is not hard to follow as long as one is paying attention, and I cannot imagine why the viewer would not be paying attention. There's more than enough to hold it.
The Calypso thing didn't really bug me too much. I figured out that she was Jones' lover, so it made sense that she was very long-lived. She was powerful enough to resurrect Barbossa, so we know that she's pretty freaking powerful. The leap to her being a goddess wasn't all that great, although they could have set it up a little better by mentioning Calypso in the second movie.
The fate of Pirate Queen Will Turner isn't as wrenching as it first appears. I hit Wikipedia after I saw the film, and there is a deleted scene that explains that if Calypso greeted Jones when he came to land, he would have been freed of his duty. Elizabeth remained true to Will so he is free, though he has still missed out on ten years, including the first nine-years-and-three-months of his son's life. I feel that while the film was LotR long, they should have kept this scene in. Not only would it have helped clarify Will's situation, but it would have added something to Jones' motivation for going the extra mile in getting back at Calypso.
We liked it a lot as well.
My only gripe with the film is that Chow Yun Fat was pretty underutilized and I rather wished the final battle had more participation from the other pirate lords--we had two armadas, let 'em fight!
One other problem--they began filming without a finished script. This really needs to be discouraged. And the sheer cost of having to hire everyone in the special effects community to work on getting the film in by deadline was probably a big chunk of the final cost.
And hey, if people haven't learned by now to stick around for the credits to end...
With all the doom and gloom reviews, I'm glad I'm not the only one who had no trouble following it. I really wish magazines/papers would get reviewers with more than 30 IQ points. This is a Disney ride, people, not Scorcesi.
I was just happy that they didn't try to pull a "Oh, Jack, Will, and Hotty McPirate Queen.... err, Elizabeth, planned all these fake double-, triple-crosses ahead of time" crap with everyone and their brother making deals at odds with each other throughout the movie...
I didn't have any trouble following either film, either. I didn't think they were great films. Entertaining, but amazingly self-conscious; despite some nice bits, there were an awful lot of "Hey, look at this!" moments, usually involving spiffy CGI ("Hey, look at how cool it is that we can splice Beckett into the middle of his ship exploding around him!") or out-of-place choreography ("Hey, let's get married in the middle of a fight!").
I enjoyed the films, but I don't think they're within two orders of magnitude of being as good or as much fun as the first one. I mean really: Going from using Geoffrey Rush as the villain to using him as little more than a comic foil for Jack? Case closed.
I'll actually top other reviewers: I hadn't seen the first two films, and I was able to pick up the plot with no difficulty at all. Certain things seemed to come a bit out of left-field, but it wasn't overly complicated at all.
I'll admit the ending bothered me a tad, because I felt that Elizabeth was a far more interesting character than Will and it bothered me that she was, essentially, being packed off to sit at home for the next ten years waiting for Will to get his day off from his exciting adventures...me, I'd have had her sail with him. They say she can't, but they don't give any real explanation and it would have been, I think, a more enjoyable ending. (Although finding out that it was a one-time tour of duty, rather than eternal, does mollify me a bit.)
But it was entertaining enough, and I loved the swordfight/marriage sequence...I got my money's worth. 'Hot Fuzz' has really wrecked the curve for summer movies, but this one wasn't bad at all.
Loved it, too. But, I lament the disposal of James Norrington so early on in the movie--he was a complex character that deserved better than he received. Though, stabbing Jones with his sword was really cool, he should have jumped ship with Elizabeth and shot the line on his way out.
Off-topic Peter, but I thought you should know that Imzadi was mentioned as an inspiration for Paul Cornell in writing his novel (and TV story) Human Nature -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/ebooks/human_nature/notes.shtml
1The Calypso/Davy Jones thing was hinted at, at least. They had their matching lockets already in the second movie, though they weren't as obvious.
Peter and board:
I had some of the same critisms as all of you. When my local friends and I left the movie, we all agreed, "It started out on the slow side, but was a good movie." It was a three hour movie, that felt like three hours. I think the film could have been tightened up a bit here and there with no damage. For example, I think the multiple Jack Sparrows were over used by the end of the film, and I felt shorted on Kieth Richards actual screen time.
I loved all of it. I'm the eternal romantic and spent a few hours in pout mode over the ending between Elizabeth and Will but eventually got around to deciding pirating isn't easy, women always were left at port by their men and life in general sucks some days. It was a sensible ending pre-credits.
Unfortunately we did miss the final sequence post credits. Sitting in a very uncomfortable chair with a broken leg that really did need elevation motivated us to get out fast. We're doing it again when I'm free! free! free! in a few more weeks just to catch that last bit.
My entire family took Friday afternoon off to see the third Pirates movie. WE all enjoyed it (from age 5 to 56) but I do agree it could have been shorter and tighter. But those are quibbles. To visit Jack and friends again was well worth the almost 3 hour playing time. In fact, my daughter and I will go see it again this week sometime.
I was very sorry to see Norrington die too. But I likeD his entire character much better in the 2nd movie. He made an excellent pirate and was a hottie with the scruff!
On a side note, the family has made plans to take the Friday off to see the new Harry Potter movie as well and now we find out they're opening it 2 days earlier. SON OF A BISCUIT EATER!
Seen it twice too (one cant refuse a free ticket, specially if its a lady who invites) and wasnt bored one bit. There are things the story didnt need, and holes in the plot the size of a fist, but it never stopped beign pure straight fun.
The whole calypso issue is, without knowing fro that missing scene, a failed story engine. It doesnt become annoying nor interrupts the pace, but in the end I can pretty much imagine the film without that as something not so different. After all, I dont need one angry goddess to make that storm plausible in a film like this, I would have take it as just "something else" to add to the roller coaster.
Ultimatelly this film is driven by characters and not a story. We know Jack, we know Elizabeth, Will and Barbossa... they are all superb in their roles (I still cant get over how much Orlando looks like Guybrush Threepwood) and they are pirates. And thats all I need in this case.
To be honest, I preferred Dead Man's Chest to At World's End. I felt PC3 was needlessly convoluted. Certainly it had some stunning moments, and I was quite satisfied with the climax and resolution, but I felt that there were quite a few bridging moments which took far too long and could have been written much more tightly. Plus they introduced too many new characters when they had already established a strong ensemble - and then proceeded to kill off two of my favourites to make way for the new (three if you include the Kraken).
Overall still a lot of fun and I've no regrets about seeing it, but I didn't think it was quite as artfully made as PC2.
Add me to the list of those that loved it. I did find it a little hard to follow in terms of who's bck-stabbing who, but I like that. There's nothing wrong with a story that makes you think a little.
I just wish I knew why the critics really, really hate this one. I used to respect their profession, but then they used to like having fun at movies.
It wasn't confusing, but I still didn't really like it. I thought for the most part it was missing the wit and charm of the first two.
Unfortunately, since the scenes WERE cut, WIll's new status is eternal. It's nice to think it isn't, but that's what the movie says so as many cut scenes or writer interviews there are it won't change anything (though I could see the special edition DVD changing it).
Whereas people around me - who loved the first two - flat out stated it suffered from the '3' syndrome. ie, as with SPIDER-MAN 3 and X-MEN 3, the studio couldn't resist trying to put too much into it, thus leading to a more disjointed and convoluted story than should have been the case with a more streamlined, well-crafted plot. Oh, it wasn't a BAD film, not by any means, but just not nearly as good is it ought to have been. Screenplay writers need to understand that trying to have two movies (or their equivalent) in one ain't a good idea.
I was stunned at how the post credits bit was crucial to understanding the opening scene. Usually those moments are just one off jokes (as in the first two films).
Never before has a cliffhanger been put at the START of a film.
I dont think Spiderman 3 problem has to do with a "3" syndrome. It is a extremely faithful movie when it coems to the comic books. When it comes to certain comic books that is. I cant remember a comic book with venom in it that I enjoyed.
It takes some of the corniest elements of the comic book, some of them the kind that wont bother us at all in printed page mostly because we grew up coming to love them... and faithfully translet them into screen. And boy is it stupid...
The credits for PoC2 were so long and the payoff so small, we decided not to stay for the end of PoC3, so I missed whatever the end scene was. I never felt the movie was hard to follow, and I enjoyed it.
I saw "The DaVinci Code" for the first time last night (having never read the book.)
Oh my God, and critics said PIRATES was confusing and convoluted. There was no dialogue in "Code" that wasn't explaining the plot. Two and a half solid hours of exposition. The whole time. Even when people were in car chases or being killed they were STILL delivering exposition. Holy crap (which, frankly, I thought it was).
PAD
PIRATES is like the INDY movies:
--The first was far and away the best--in large part because it was unexpected.
--The second lacked a lot of the character charm of first.
--The third, while not as good as the first, but a significant step up from the 2nd, refocusing on character--because audiences want to CARE about the characters involved in the great summer flicks action sequences.
-- Ken from Chicago
I liked the movies in direct relationship to how much swordfighting was in them.
This one didn't have enough swordfighting.
Was nobody else bothered by the fact that P3 basically asks us to file a life of killing innocent people and stealing their belongings is defended under the banner of "freedom"?
Sure, the director and writers did their best to make the East India Co. out to be as villainous as possible - killing people without trial, etc. - but personally, it didn't distract me from the basic issue at stake, i.e. that the British Navy was in conjunction with Britain's private companies trying to make the Carribbean safe from a bunch of thieves.
In the first movie, Jack Sparrow a pirate and was likeable, but clearly not truly the "good guy"; Will Turner, who had no real interest in pirating, filled that role.
With the second movie, Will Turner was trying to save his fiance from unscrupulous actions by a certain Brit. Fair enough.
But this third movie just throws all common moral sense to the wind with a ringing little Braveheart speech about the freedom to pirate by Elizabeth, while the British commander is portrayed as evil, simply interested
in "business".
Excuse me, but "business" is how honest, decent people make their living the world over. Pirates are murderers.
I'm disturbed.
And about to be jumped, no doubt, by all the people who just want me to lighten up, because hey, it's just entertainment, right?
I saw the film yesterday, with my wife & 2 kids, and whilst we all enjoyed it, none of us were entirely satisfied by it.
I don't think it was necessarily hard to follow, but it did lack some of the wit and charm of the earlier films, and I thought the tone was a little uncertain - light and jokey one minute whilst quite bleak the next.
Having said that, the kids loved the monkey in the cannon bit as mush as anything in any of the films.
Oh, and I didn't see the after the credit sbit either, as, after nearly three hours, my daughter was desperate to get to the toilet. I'll catch it on DVD I guess.
Tim
in response to Adam...
The whole piracy genre depends on you swallowing that "freedom" excuse for murder and plunder. There was never a gentle side of pirates, corsairs or bucaneers but since some goverments used them a lot, and since many fortunes came from it, the whole idea of piracy beign a hard life for free men became popular literature.
I couldnt stop thinking the same as you, specially when I watched the poor, neatly dressed EICompany soldiers beign slaughtered. But it was still a very funny and exciting movie to see. If you think about it, you also root for Anibal Lecter in his movies, dont you?
Here's me review (as always, kids, go and check out new reviewage every Thursday at www.viewmag.com/film.php). Overall, I'm mixed on it. I liked the first one, absolutely freakin LOVED the 2nd one, and the 3rd one feels flat to me. There's fun stuff in it, and you will probably get a kick out of alot of the antics, but there is so much stuff that is missed or dwelled upon that is ultimately meaningless (all of the tripple crossings make no sense or have any point whatsoever by the end of the overall picture. General chaos in Pirate Land, sure, but it doesn't freakin go ANYWHERE. Ever.) In the end, the flick simply isn't as much fun as the Absolutely Insane "Dead Man's Chest". Which is a downer that this film takes itself so seriously, because everybody had such a blast with the 2nd one. Anyhoo, ramblings follow. enjoy!
---
Pirates Needs More Pop
*** out of *****
3 out of 5
The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has a strange story. Based on a freakin’ Disney World ride, no one expected the 1st movie to be any good, coming after the flop of The Country Bears theme-park-ride-turned movie. However, PoTC: Curse of the Black Pearl was surprisingly fun, even if a little dry whenever Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow wasn’t onscreen. The 2nd film, Dead Man’s Chest, was absolutely batty, but in a relentlessly entertaining way. So DMC’s success is what makes the 3rd and maybe final film, At World’s End, alternately fun yet frustrating. Its plotline goes off in so many directions, that you end up giving up and just watching the battles and Captain Jack be crazy.
At the conclusion of the 2nd film, Captain Jack was consigned to the great beyond, and Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) returned from his apparent death (annoyingly, his resurrection is given all but two throwaway lines). In World’s End, Barbossa teams up with Elizabeth Swan (Kira Knightly, looking surprisingly well made-up for someone stuck out at sea) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) to find Cap’n Jack. Along the way, they still have to contend with the villainous Man-Squid Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and his boss, Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), head of the East India Trading Company that threatens to destroy the Pirates life once and for all.
All of the actors equip themselves exceptionally well, with Depp throwing himself at his part with his usual custom abandon. Even after three movies, his constant mugging isn’t getting old, its actually getting more refined. The action scenes, across the board, are spectacular and well worth a look for FX fans. The direction by Gore Verbinski is painterly; he knows how to frame shots well, and structure action scenes that nicely spiral out of control. However, for all that is good about the movie, there are a lot of places where it missteps, falling well short of its predecessor. As a fair warning, most of the review will be mentioning the 900 little things that drove this viewer up the wall. But, despite all the complaints, there is still fun contained in At World’s End, and it’ll probably be worth your summer moviegoing buck. Anyway, complaints commence below:
First off, there was much ballyhoo about Keith Richards coming in to play Captain Jack’s Dad. Unfortunately, Richards sleepwalks through his scenes, with nary of his trademark weirdness. Since Depp has said he based his performance on Keith Richards, the producers should have let Richards be Richards and show where Cap’n Jack’s Crazy came from. It just seems like a wasted opportunity.
Probably one of the movie’s biggest disappointments is how it promises the climax to be a Pirate vs. East India Trading Company throwdown. When much of the movie is about the Pirate Lords assembling a unified front against the evil agents of commerce, YOU THINK YOU'D ACTUALLY FREAKIN' SEE IT! There are stirring shots of the Pirate Lords assembling at sea, then the big brawl between The Flying Dutchman and The Black Pearl happens, then the fight ends, and, after all that, the rest of Pirate Lords are just floating there, doing absolutely nothing. And all of the assembled East India Trading Company boats did absolutely nothing. Its like promising a succulent nine-course meal and getting a soggy broccoli stick instead.
Speaking of battles, one of the highlights of Dead Man’s Chest were the sequences with The Kraken, the big, multi-toothed tentacle monster that dined on seafaring pirate ships like popcorn kernels. What made those sequences so interesting was that DMC would, at random moments, suddenly become a Godzilla movie. Its not much a spoiler, (more of a warning, really) to mention that the Kraken is absolutely nowhere to be found in At World’s End. Inside of the first five minutes, the Kraken is written off as dead. Offscreen. All that build up with the monster in the 2nd film amounted to nothing in this one.
Another letdown is that a significant portion of the movie is devoted to a bunch of meetings – setting up one backstabbing betrayal with one character who then talks to another character, who will then backstab another character after one character does something and yadda yadda. Like the worst parts of Episode I: The Phantom Menace, people just talk and talk about absolutely nothing that ends up not getting resolved anyway. The triple-crossings eventually degrade into a general sense of chaos and none of it feels affecting. When Elizabeth Swan had her huge betrayal moment at the end of Dead Man’s Chest, it was a shocking beat that the audience genuinely felt. Scenes like that happen every five minutes in At World’s End, and none of the treacherous moments raise more than a curious eyebrow.
So, for the record, in The Great May 2007 Battle of the Blockbuster Threequels, it goes Spider-Man 3 as entertaining, Shrek 3 as pretty unspectacular, and Pirates 3 as a mixed result. The finale of the Pirates series manages to entertain despite its own shortcomings, but its nowhere near as much fun as the first flick, or matches the complete, jaw-dropping insanity that was the 2nd movie. Sigh. Well, we’ll always have the Dead Man’s Chest, at least.
Final gripe: with all the setup for Calypso this and Davey Jones that, why would the end result of her plotline be "screams really loud, turns into a bunch of crabs and you don't see her again." That's not what I call a payoff.
I think that cutting the explanation of the Flying Dutchman's curse was a terrible mistake. Not only does it make the ending appear extremely depressing, but it also damages the Calypso plotline (which was imperfect to begin with) and removes an important parallel between the two love stories; one which would have made both of them more interesting.
Beyond that, I really enjoyed the film. I find Adam's complains rather bizarre, though: what gives you the impression that this film is trying to be in any way historically accurate? It's like complaining about Monkey Island being all about murderers. The film is intentionally, self-consciously fantastic - and I'm not just talking about the supernatural aspects of the story. If you're ever going to get anything out of it, you have to allow for the ability of art to use things for its own purposes.
You know TallestFanEver, I think your comments about the triple crosses not making sense shows why some may have found this movie hard to follow. No offense meant, but I think anyone who watched this with the assumption that the characters wouldn't be plotting things out as they went along would be at a disadvantage.
I didn't like this nearly as much as the first two. The first two were straight faced affairs, while this one had a giddiness that kept pulling me out of the story. For example, I thought firing the monkey out of the cannon and the debate between the two bumbling guards about whether assuming things about "fish people" are justified or not were both a bit much. I could overlook it if they were just throwaway bits, but both actually advanced the plot. The monkey saved Will's bacon, and the guards became distracted enough to allow Jack to steal the chest. I didn't like it when violence was used (IMO) to substitute for plotting in "The Departed", and I don't like it any better to use silliness to move the plot along in a movie like PC3that takes itself so seriously overall.
As for the scene at the end, any three hour movie with a scene after the credits should come with an advisory not to drink anything for at least an hour beforehand.
Horribly OT, but is anyone else unable to adjust the size of the comments screen? It pops up in my Firefox window at some absurdly thin size.
In response to Adam: I had some of those thoughts myself, but ultimately we are not being asked to side with the pirates because they are good. We are being asked to side with them because they are the lesser of two evils.
Consider the pirates. The scene at Shipwreck Cove was perfect for showing them for what they were. Individually they were very dangerous, but they were laughable as a unit because they *could not pull together.* Contrast this with Beckett. He's a British lord who has risen high in the EITC, and he has an essentially unstoppable weapon at his disposal. As long as his legitimacy was intact, his command of the united forces was practically absolute. Add his ruthlessness into the mix. You have a demonstrably ruthless man with awesome power at his disposal. He'll break the pirates, and-- what? Release Jones? Play nice? Oh, no. Not on your life. Breaking the pirates is only step one.
If I were to speculate as to Cutler Beckett's Master Plan of World (Economic) Domination: once the pirates were broken, he would turn the resulting fame to his advantage by rising straight to the top of the EITC as soon as he possibly could. His rivals would become his supporters, or else their vessels would begin to suffer all sorts of accidents at sea. Preferably while his most powerful rivals were aboard.
Once he became the head of the company, he would then turn his attention to the EITC's rivals. Within five years, it would be very clear that you either dealt with the EITC in some capacity or not at all. Gold would pour in, and Beckett would have everything he ever wanted.
Now, Jones and the Dutchman alone *might* not be enough to provide Beckett with the domination he requires. Too bad he doesn't have a way to make more indestructible servants. Oh, wait-- the Aztec chest at Isla de Muerta. It can't be found except by those who already know where it is (or who have magic of their own), but Beckett has access to people with that knowledge: the survivors of CotBP's last battle. How many fleets could withstand the Dutchman *and* a ship or two of skeleton-soldiers? Answer: None.
The pirate lords could only dream of doing as much damage as Beckett could have. He could have been *unstoppable*, because much of it would have legal and the rest would never have been believed. The EITC would have ruled the oceans, and anybody that tried to go around them would have eventually met with the fish-people. When Beckett died, old and obscenely wealthy, he could have let the whole thing collapse, but I don't think that he would have. Beckett strikes me as an empire builder, and ultimately: what use is there in building an empire if you don't have anyone to bequeath it to? My guess is that he would have passed his secrets onto a "worthy" heir, and the situation would have continued unchanged.
In the short term, any one of the Pirate Lords could cause more damage and ruin more lives than Beckett. In the long term, the reverse holds true with a vengeance. If I must take sides, I pick the pirates.
PAD - Agreed about DA VINCI. It lost me about five minutes in (what? The Louvre, home of the Mona Lisa and other masterpieces, has NO security worth speaking of?), I figured out the big secret about ten minutes in (no, hadn'te read the book) and, after sitting through about two hours of this jumbled mess, had no real payoff as they decide to go on sitting on the *big secret*.
So what the heck was the point of the whole thing?
I should note that the statement "Pirates are murderers" doesn't necessarily reflect the historical reality. Pirates with any sense didn't want the people they robbed to think that they would be killed, because that would encourage them to fight to the death; far better for them to surrender their goods without fighting. Some historical pirates aren't known to have killed anyone (Blackbeard, for example).
Evan: I seem to recall Isla De Muerta sank between movies 1 & 2.
I felt PotC3 really needed one or two more drafts of the script. The Brethren Court and the Calypso stories went no where. They seemed to be there just to explain the maelstrom, when really anything could have been used to get that there. Beckett has his most powerful weapon, the craken, destroyed because...he can? That seems to hardly be the mark of a firm thinker....it felt like the writers realized it was too powerful to roam around, so they exited it offstage.
Beckett has his most powerful weapon, the craken, destroyed because...he can?
No, it's common sense to get rid of it, because it's not Beckett's weapon, it's Jones's; killing it means that Jones won't have it to use on Beckett if he breaks free of his control. Beckett avoided a classic Evil Overlord mistake there. (It's alsothematically tied to the idea that the old powers are being replaced by humans as the rulers of the seas.)
know TallestFanEver, I think your comments about the triple crosses not making sense shows why some may have found this movie hard to follow. No offense meant, but I think anyone who watched this with the assumption that the characters wouldn't be plotting things out as they went along would be at a disadvantage.
Its not really that the backstabbin' and shifting motivations is hard to follow (even though it is), its more than it doesn't pay off properly. As I mentioned above, Elizabeth's big bit at the end of Dead Man's Chest was a huge kick to the audience's expectations. None of these were, comparatively.
To Doug Atkinson:
The approach to piracy you describe was not unnusual when it came to sea captures, but for pirate smost of their trade consisted in attacking and sacking villages. There, a reputation of beign ruthless killers would serve their interests as it would drive many into the hills or into hiding, very much like viking raids did in the Middle Ages. There are stories of whole villages put to knife during pirate raids, but since the victims were teh very much hated spaniards, the literature of the time tended to overlook that messy part of the life of those free, valiant men...
Even when it came to sea captures, many pirates showed the same ruthlesness as in shore raids. Guys like Lorencillo (dutch) or Olones (french) were know for giving no quarter nor taking no prisoners unless they were viable slaves.
Try to find anything about Olones' raid to Maracaibo and nearby Gibraltar and youll enjoy a true pirate storey, the kind that freezes your blood.
I took my 10-year old nephew to see it two weeks ago. we absolutely loved it!! YARRRR!!! the night before i caught a review of the movie and both reviewers, no clue who they are, said they couldnt follow anything. they made comments like 'at some points of the movie we had no idea who's ship we were on'...?...if you paid attention to the movie you knew exactly where you were at all times. i even asked my nephew and he knew what was going on. AND, again, hes only 10!I hope they do a fourth movie!! and fith and sixth....
"The approach to piracy you describe was not unnusual when it came to sea captures, but for pirate smost of their trade consisted in attacking and sacking villages. There, a reputation of beign ruthless killers would serve their interests as it would drive many into the hills or into hiding, very much like viking raids did in the Middle Ages."
Well, consider the first POTC film where, upon seeing the Pearl for the first time, the jailed pirates assert that when the Pearl attacks a town, there are no survivors. To which Jack wonders aloud how the stories could possibly have been spread were that the case. The pirates have no ready response to that. So even in the films' own continuity, the pirates aren't entirely merciless. Not as softhearted as the Pirates of Penzance, perhaps, but still...
Off the top of my head, the only cold-blooded murder we actually witness in the three films that I can think of off the top of my head--one that wasn't in the midst of combat--was when Pintel says "Hello, chump," and shoots down the butler during the Port Royale invasion. I have to admit that, since Elizabeth witnessed that bit of brutality, it annoys me that she willingly spent any time in Pintel's company in the third film.
PAD
"Whereas DMC was essentially a series of spectacular set pieces strung together through a sometimes uneven narrative"
And you think this one is different? The plot served absolutely no purpose other than to give the actors a chance to swash their bucklers--which may be a good thing, in a way, since I did have trouble remembering who was allied with whom and seeking which mystic McGuffin to what end, etc. (a What Has Gone Before opening wouldn't have hurt).
Why put in all that effort to resurrect Calypso when all she does is create a big backdrop for the final battle? The whirlpool didn't even eat anyone!
Why is it that if Davy Jones got squidified for betraying his duty, the East India Company can seize control of the ship without any backlash?
What the hell was the point of Richards sleepwalking through a few seconds of screen time?
Why does the entire British fleet give up after the pirates defeat exactly one of their boats?
And while I wasn't as troubled by pirate ethics as some posters above, it did strike me that Barbossa got off pretty lightly, all things considered.
The fact the British fleet can apparently communicate instantaneously across the oceans, and that a voyage from Singapore to the Arctic is a piece of cake for the Black Pearl, I'm willing to write off because it was more fun this way.
I did like the movie. It triumphed over its flaws. But boy, did it have flaws.
Oh, believe it or not, one of my friends was baffled why they came up with a stupid name like "Davy Jones locker" for the place where Jack was locked up.
The movie was the worst piece of celloid puke ever done, Then again anything Disney does is also like that
Try to find anything about Olones' raid to Maracaibo and nearby Gibraltar and youll enjoy a true pirate storey, the kind that freezes your blood.
El hombre Malo, I think it's spelled L'Olonnois but anyway, thanks for the tip; I read up on him and all I have to say is...Damn!
Would make a GREAT movie! Pirates vs flesh eating cannibals! The winner...the audience!
Not as softhearted as the Pirates of Penzance, perhaps, but still...
I realized that you could shed light on that aspect of the third movie using these lines:
I sink a few more ships, it’s true,
Than a well-bred monarch ought to do;
But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work than ever I do...
Anyway, I don't disagree that many pirates were bloodthirsty killers; it's just worth remembering that the reality (as well as the fiction) was more complex than just evil criminal pirates vs. noble upholders of the law. And that's without bringing the practice of privateering into it.
Why does the entire British fleet give up after the pirates defeat exactly one of their boats?
I'm guessing they had no desire to go up against the Flying Dutchman, which had just changed sides and destroyed their flagship. I'm sure it had built up quite a reputation while in the service of the EITC.
El Olones is the name spaniards had for him, beign from Sables d´Olonne in the Bretagne and meaning...well, meaning that he is from that town :) ...we spaniards are like that and used to translate most names in history, from kings to villains, so while studying everyone seemed to me like people who could have lived in a house down the street.
PAD:
"...it annoys me that she willingly spent any time in Pintel's company in the third film."
Well, she spends time with Barbossa after all. Maybe that is worst.
Thinking about the first movie, I cant help but miss the Pearl undead crew, specially if you compare it with the Dutchman's. In the second and third movie they overexpose the fishy crew and...well, as pirates go, these are just slimy muppets and the Pearl's were pure canon. There is nothing about the Dutchman that surpase the scene in the first flick in wich you see the undead pirates walking on the sea floor. And no barracuda-man can compare to the look of the hessian grenadier.
Scavenger: Isla de Muerta sank? *hits Wikipedia* Huh. So it did. I don't remember that. I guess I'll just have to watch DMC again. For research purposes. *nods sagely*
PAD: I wonder how willing Elizabeth really was to spend time with any of them. I wager that the only people that she held (mostly) positive feelings for were Will, Jack and Jack's pirates (Gibbs, Cotton, and Marty). She stuck by the others out of necessity, and possibly a sense of duty.
El hombre Malo: I agree. The shot of the pirates on the sea floor was iconic. Jones was awesome, but his crew didn't really compare.
I decidedly did not love it. It missed a lot of the charm of the first, and there were a lot of throw-aways ( Tia Dama/Calypso- Davy Jones endings, Sao Feng ). It became the Elizabeth Swan/Pirate Queen story. Oh yeah there was a guy named Jack Sparrow in there somewhere. And Norrington...don't get me started......why do third ins series movies always suck like a broken Hoover ( SW-ROTJ, Superman 3, Spiderman3, Batman 3, POTC 3....)
Back to the Future 3 and LOTR 3 being the exceptions.
I'll never get the whole premise of the Ant-Hero. Everyone in this trilogy has feet of clay. There is not one person I could admire or fuels my soul. Movies that glorify what should be the villains (Gangstas, Mafia, Pirates, etc.) bore me. What value can I get from such stories, unless they're tragedies, such as the Godfather series. Now, if you stuck with my comment this long, you might be asking why did I bother to go and waste 3 hrs. of my life? My wife likes Johnny Depp.
I liked the movie the only major flaws I could see where that the whole Calypso thing went nowhere, the placing of the heart on the Dutchman made no sense, the crosses were a bit boring, and I never really got into Lord Beckett's whole charchter like what is his history especially with Jack? Also it never managed to top DMC's wheel sword fight,the final bout with Jone's could have been more...
I liked the movie the only major flaws I could see where that the whole Calypso thing went nowhere, the placing of the heart on the Dutchman made no sense, the crosses were a bit boring, and I never really got into Lord Beckett's whole charchter like what is his history especially with Jack? Also it never managed to top DMC's wheel sword fight,the final bout with Jone's could have been more...
I'm seeing the usual complaints about this movie (too long, plot holes, etc etc), but that is not surprising, as every film goes through this.
All I can say is that this was the shortest near-3 hour film I've ever seen. We saw it at a sold-out showing at El Capitan in Hollywood Saturday night last weekend (opening weekend). I remember looking at my watch at one point and being shocked that we were already 2 hours into the film.
I don't find the movie overly complex in the least, although that was certainly one of my concerns going into the film. Not because I prefer mindless films, but the movie can easily become overwhelmed by it. Much of my concern in complexity comes with the fact that PotC3 continues to introduce new characters, and so I wondered if there was any way all these guys could get proper screen time while telling a coherent story.
In many ways, I think the Pirates trilogy mirrors the Matrix trilogy. The first movie was a great stand-alone film. The sequels made you think, but the Matrix sequels became so bogged down that I'll probably never see 2 & 3 again.
Pirates, on the other hand, overcomes the problems the Matrix sequels suffered from by presenting an intelligent set of films while still keeping the story and action moving along at a great pace. This movie really did succeed at doing everything it needed to do.
I do think PotC3 needs a second viewing, because it is a film where you can miss a line here or there, to make sure you catch everything. And while I'm not really concerned about what deleted scenes may or may not have done or said, I am curious to know if there's anything to explain the mark that Jack Sparrow left on Beckett (remember that they briefly show the 'P' on Sparrow again).
One comment I find amusing is that people have said the post-credits scene leaves the possibility of another sequel. Err... the ending of the movie proper left the possibility of a sequel.
I've also seen the complaint that people didn't like the ending to this one simply because it wasn't a 'Disney ending'. Of course, that was specifically my main complaint with the first one: the Disney ending. :)
re: the cut scenes
For oonce, I'm actually glad that TPTB cut some scenes. I think having it be a one time tour of duty cuts both part of the cost of the ending out, and eliminates part of the 'timelessness' of the story.
I *like* the idea of Will sailing the oceans forever, not because I dislike the character, but becasue I do like him. Same thing about (Quantum Leap spoilers) Sam Beckett being doomed to never come home. It makes it seem like the story is never fully ending.
Plus, Will coming home would be a bit *too* much of a Disney ending. All is well, happy, happy.
What the ending suggest to me is :
A-A sequel is possible with Jack starring in it
B-Elizabeth and Will story seems to end here.
My main complaint is the movie (to me) did not resemble the 1st two. The previous films were funny and while there was violence it was easy to see it was "make-believe". Fighting skeletons and fishmen is easy to laugh at. Shooting women point blank in the head, driving stakes thru someone's mouth thru thier skull, death by a splinter as big as your leg, and scences of brutally wounded after cannon fire was not easy to laugh at.
Jack was crazy and obessed with hats and Elizabeth in the first two movies. He was sadly insane in the third.
There was a love triangle between 3 friends, it turned into who could use which to further thier own agenda in the third.
And I really didn't care about Davey Jones broken heart. He was not a sympathic character. The story was about Jack, Elizabeth and Will (or so I thought.
I'm sure someone can point out brutal violence in the 1st two that I don't remember, but that's kinda the point. I left those not remembering they had dark moments. Dark is all I think about from the third. When I go see the new Die Hard movie I know it will be gritty, will be disappointed if it is not. I just did not expect it from POC3.
I was very pleased with it.
It vastly entertained me that the screenwriters combined a well-documented period of really relatively recent history with fairly common mariners' folklore to build a mythology that was vast and sprawling, like a sort of satirical echoe of TOlkien's LOTR's mythological cosmology.
Marc: Horribly OT, but is anyone else unable to adjust the size of the comments screen? It pops up in my Firefox window at some absurdly thin size.
That's why I always right-click on the Comments link and Open in New Tab. Then comments come up full screen, instead of that pesky little window.
Marc: Horribly OT, but is anyone else unable to adjust the size of the comments screen? It pops up in my Firefox window at some absurdly thin size.
That's why I right-click on the Comments link and Open in New Tab. Avoids that whole pesky tiny window issue.
clay: What happened after the credits?
The caption reads "Ten Years Later". Elizabeth and a small boy (I thought girl, but guess I was wrong) walk out onto a low cliff overlooknig the sea. The sun sets and there is a flash of green. Captain Will is sailing in to join his love and meet his son.