Okay, I think this is about as far as the Pirates franchise can go. The first movie was great and novel, but the second was too chaotic and directionless, and didn’t seem to be about anything important. The third movie is better in the “north is THIS way” department, but honestly, the characters and their idiosyncrasies are growing wearisome, Jack Sparrow aside.Pirates 3 picks up pretty much exactly where Pirates 2 left off; after a ghoulish and very un-Disney-like opening sequence, that is. It involves several people being hanged on suspicion of piracy, including one boy of about 12. Grim stuff. Sitting behind me was a little boy who couldn’t have been more than 6; I’m no parent, but this isn’t really the type of thing he should be seeing.
What follows is more grimness, as the fun and adventure that the first movie had in spades is virtually gone. Granted, this is a pirate movie, so a certain amount of badness is to be expected, even wanted. But rather than keep the childishness and simplicity of pirates intact, Gore Verbinski makes this look strikingly similar to one of his past films, The Ring, an unmitigated horror film that didn’t produce even a single smile in the audience. Even so, Johnny Depp is able to inject some comedy and light-heartedness, but not too much; just enough. However, he is absent from the first half-hour or so of the film, which makes it pretty hard to get through. That leaves us with Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush), Elizabeth (Keira Knightly), and Will (Orlando Bloom) as the centerpieces. Rush is pretty great, but the last two make me want to scream. Bloom and Knightly were fine for their roles in the first movie, but once they both morphed into pirates, they pretty much jumped the shark for me. Knightly especially is simply not right for the role of a pirate, let alone a pirate queen who inspires other pirates to follow her. And we have to face the fact that Bloom is simply not a very good actor. He definitely looked the part for Legolas in Lord of the Rings, but I think Peter Jackson said “well, this guy’s acting chops aren’t so good, so we’ll just have him shoot stuff and speak but little.”
The story doesn’t even wrap up very well. Sure, the current plot thread ends, but a little sloppily. And just what I was hoping wouldn’t happen, happens: they leave it open to a 4th film. I can see it now. Pirates of the
As it stands, Pirates 3 is a decent film, but it closes a trilogy for a franchise that desperately needs to be over. Sadly, the money machine that is
In short, Pirates 3 is as good as it can be, which is not all that good.
"Sorry. I just thought with the Captain issue in doubt, I'd throw my name in for consideration."
"It's pronounced 'egregious.'"
22 Rating: 6
Particle Man
12 comments:
"Pirates of the Caribbean: Maybe Money DOES Grow On Trees."
Laughing out loud.
For the record, I don't know what the fuss was all about with the first Pirates, and I didn't find the first Matrix that good either...
(Don't ask me why I think this would be of any interest to you; it's just that I'm too bored at the office)
I saw Pirtates 3 this past weekend - I went in with low expectations... and even those weren't met.
moshe, why do you think this would be of any interest to us?
oh.
It's sad that Pirates 3 didn't even meet low expectations...while I wasn't crazy about part 2 I still found it fairly entertaining, similar to how I felt about 1 also. But I think the whole thing just got way to ridiculous. I mean, the first was, too, but sometimes we can use a tasteful amount of ridiculousness, you know? Does that even make any sense?
And the only reaction I can give regarding The Matrix not being "that good" is this:
!?"&##!
I've had this very long discussion about the Matrix exactly 7 years ago. Eventually, I admitted that it's not such a bad film: by your scale I would put it on 13.
However, I still maintain it's lacking. For a start (but a big start), if anything you imagine can take place, then call me a psycho but I can imagine much more than anybody in the films ever did.
Moshe, you're a psycho.
and a bit of conceited psycho, if you don't mind me saying so.
I think conceited is going too far. I can see what Moshe's getting at: Anytime a premise comes with "anything is possible," it runs the risk of using a lack of imagination in exploring that theme. The same complaint could be levied against Bruce Almighty, where a man is given all the power in the universe and all he can think to do is get petty revenge against a co-worker and make his wife's breasts bigger.
Really, though, I think that's just a matter of the critic saying "The character isn't doing what I would do given these circumstances."
And all that said, The Matrix still rocks. It's savvier than nearly every other action movie (which, granted, might be like saying wetter than nearly every desert). It's also got groundbreaking cinematography and a kicking score. It's just a good movie.
To put it bluntly, that's a crap reason to think that the first Matrix isn't very good. I would elaborate, but I think Dr.Worm summed it up nicely. The Matrix is a vastly entertaining marriage of Hong-Kong action and sci-fi, that is unique and virtually impossible to rip-off, even when done well (looking at you, Equilibrium.....)
Hey, conceited's my middle name :)
You're probably right with your criticism. I feel like by now I'm protesting against Matrix just for the sake of it.
I would like to point out that generally speaking, your blog's ratings average is quite high. If you compare the number of negative reviews on your blog to the positive ones, my impression is that the vast majority is on the positive side of things. Which is my way of saying that by my standards, which assume a normal distribution around the 0 mark, a rating of 13 is not bad at all.
I also think we're all conceited: sitting behind the internet while sipping our lattes and saying how bad certain films are is very easy, but actually making them is quite hard. I don't know much about you, but I know I wouldn't be able to come up with anything better than the worst reviewed film ever on your blog...
A very, very good point.
There's actually a nice little part in the movie Ratatouille which recognizes what you mention: how easy it is for a reviewer to make or break (or in our case, just criticize) a person's hard work. But more on that movie to come...
And I agree, we need more negative reviews! I think this tendency for us comes from our desire to only invest time and money into films we have a good idea we'll enjoy. But this has come up before. The thing is, it's hard to change. I don't really think the normal distribution would fall around zero in reality, though, because that would mean that the majority of films we all see would be mediocre, neither good nor bad. And I don't think that's the case.
and like DW said when this came up before, the majority of major studio productions are at least a little good. you don't get gobs of funding for something and get people to invest a large chunk of their time and energy making something if it doesn't have at least a few redeeming qualities.
and actually, i applaud our recent ribbing of some highly publicized movies, while we still need more negative reviews, it's good that we can see the flaws in big money-makers. i think we've gotten better at reviewing in the year and a third that the site has been active, too.
Post a Comment