The “character piece” can be, for many, a powerful method of storytelling. For proof, look no further than the “Harry Potter” franchise. The same success can be found in the movie adaptations. There's a question though that, consciously or not, has been asked and answered via film: Is the character piece more powerful in the written form or in film? Obviously, a number of examples exist in either format each with different levels of commercial success. Blatant examples include the Star Wars series, The Lord of the Rings, Lost, and so on. So, it's no surprise that this form of storytelling is still being used (and in the case of this review, to tell the story of the misadventures of a group of pirates).
The film in question is the third of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series, “At World's End.”
It picks up with the recently revived Barbossa, Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann, the crew of the Black Pearl, the crew of the Sao Feng (a Pirate Lord), and Tia Dalma (the witch who revived Barbossa) all journeying to Davy Jones's Locker to recover our hero (or distraction, more on that later) Jack Sparrow. It seems that Jack is one of the Pirate Lords, and he must attend the meeting of the Nine Pirate Lords at Shipwreck Cove, as the meeting has been called by the singing of the song “Hoist the Colours.” From here, our heroes travel all over the world in the attempt to defeat Jones and Lord Beckett, as well as any other unresolved plot point.
Now, despite the fact that this film made mucho, mucho money at the box office, I simply find myself unimpressed with the film as a whole. So, the rest of this review will be my attempt to not only go into what convinced me that Gore Vabinsky was suffering from a case of scurvy while directing this, but what little I liked about this film.
1.) Lots of story doesn't equate to an engaging story (a.k.a Jack vs Will)
If there's one thing this film has, it's a boatload of characters, and lots of characters have lots of story. So, it seems that the brains behind this film saw fit to try to elaborate on all SEVEN main stories (Will and Elizabeth's romance, Will's quest for his father, Jack's quest for immortality, Jack's quest for the black Pearl against Barbossa, the Pirates versus the East India Trading Company and Lord Beckett, Jack and his debt to Davy Jones, and Davy Jones and his past with Tia Dalma a.k.a. Calypso). The result of this is a messy mash-up of various plots, leaving me feeling utterly detached by the time gloriously over-the-top conclusion reared it's dreadlocked head. Also, sometimes I had trouble deciding what the filmmaker wanted us to pay attention to. While watching the first film, it seemed clear that Will Turner was the main character, and while Jack Sparrow was a crowd favorite, he was an understood supporting character. By the second film, however, Jack began to take more of a forefront, no doubt due to audience appeal. So, we come to this film and a great deal if not a majority of it revolves around Jack, pushing Will Turner's story to the wayside. Occasionally we are treated to more of Will's transformation into a dangerous pirate in his own right, but as soon as he seems to be gaining his sea-legs, Jack comes swinging back into the picture.
Now, I like Jack. I find him humorous, if at times a bit annoying, but Will's story just seems so much more engaging. His travel from lowly blacksmith to captain of The Flying Dutchman is worthy of it's own movie series and they even develop it a great deal. Yet, Jack continuously takes the forefront. His story is nowhere near as developed, yet he gets more screen time. It's similar to the issue I had with the Dark Knight: the main character, despite his obvious complexity, is given less screen time in comparison to his supporting character. It's something I dub “The Urkel Conundrum.” It obviously refers to the character Steven Q. Urkel from the 90's sitcom “Family Matters.” Carl Winslow, the patriarch of the family the series follows, is the main character. The show began to focus on Steve, though, who was originally supposed to only be a minor character made for occasional comic relief. What happened was that audiences loved the character and so the writers obviously wrote in response to that, making the character more than just a reoccurring character and into a full fledged set piece.
If anything, I would have rather known less about Jack, making it even harder for audiences to tell whether he was “good” or “bad.” That kind of freedom of character seems to appeal to a great deal of people these days. Unfortunately, this was not the case and we are left with a sloppy attempt to have a more “epic” feel to an overplayed story.
2.) Plot Holes Galore
I really get the impression that the only way to make a big budget film these days is to make sure there are a wealth of plot holes then cover them up with the special effects. “Pirates 3” has such blatantly obvious plot holes, I'm surprised that more people didn't just walk out of the theaters in disgust. If you don't know what I speak of, just look at the below examples:
A.) In the course of all of the “Pirates” films, the time spent sailing has to be measured in months or years, because the technology used in boating wasn't advanced enough to make very speedy trips. Yet, in this film, they seemingly travel thousands of miles in what appears to be only a few months. From the Caribbean to the China in how long? Doesn't say. By my reckoning, the characters (the living ones) should all be about 6 to 8 years older.
B.) It's kind of interesting how Calypso was just so easily controlled by mortals. Not only is she the God of the Seas, Master of All Waters, but in human form she can even REVIVE THE DEAD. Seriously, is she God of the Seas or just God? And somehow they managed to bind her to a human body? I'm gonna call B.S. on that. Not to mention the spiritual, mystical world seems to be so malleable at he hands of Man. More B.S.
C.) THE ENTIRE FINAL SEQUENCE IN THE MAELSTROM. SERIOUSLY. SOOOO MUCH B.S. FIGHTING ON THE MAST IN THAT WIND AND AT THE SHIP BEING AT THAT ANGLE? GIVE ME AN EFFIN BREAK! EVEN FOR THIS MOVIE THAT'S SO INSANELY STUPID THAT I LITERALLY HAD TO STOP THE DVD AND SAY “NO! YOU DO NOT DO THAT. YOU JUST TURNED JACK INTO SPIDERMAN! STOP IT! ALSO, DAVY JONES CAN WALK ON LAND WITH BUCKETS OF WATER ON HIS FEET BUT HE CAN STAY ON A SHIP WHERE HE'S NOT EVEN TOUCHING THE WATER. NOPE. THAT'S COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY. YOU'RE NOT EVEN TRYING ANYMORE. YOU JUST CHANGED THE RULES FOR COMEDIC AFFECT.
D.) How does the Brethren Court actually enforce the rules and codes that they have? They're so spread out all over the Earth. The time it would take for the information of World Events would take months to reach. Also, the “code” they have has no real enforcement, lest they all meet. Which means, there should be more pirates like Blackbeard (from the fourth and latest film “On Stranger Tides”).
3.) What I liked
There were some elements of the film I legitimately liked. I enjoyed the cinematography. The massive set pieces and naval battles were impressive visually. Also, I found a good bit of the dialogue humorous, if a bit unneeded. Despite the fact that they seemed to be making the rules up as they went, I enjoyed the mystical elements to the story. It gives the impression that there is a much deeper element to this world we've been shown, an element that runs even deeper than we had seen in the previous films.
4.) Final Thoughts
I wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. The simple fact is, I found the plot to be too crowded with characters. There was no foreseeable way to elaborate enough on all the characters to get me to care enough about all of them. If they had been a series of books and not movies, this may have been possible. It's the same issue I have with the Star Wars franchise. I understand that it was made for families to watch, but I'm certain I would have enjoyed it a great deal more if it were a bit darker. It seems to treat most pirates as though they're just nomads who like to not bathe and shoot things. Not accurate. Someone's walking the plank for this.
RATING: 2.5 OUT OF 5 STARS
