PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END
Reviewed by Harvey S. Karten
Walt Disney Pictures
Grade: C-
Directed by: Gore Verbinsky
Written By: Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, from characters created by Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, Stuart Beattie,
Jay Wolpert, based on Walt Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer
Cast: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Jack Davenport, Bill Nighy
Screened at: Regal E-Walk, NYC, 5/21/07
Opens: May 25, 2007
The expression "You get what you pay for" has been challenged ever since Socrates's students bragged
that they learned more from the old philosopher's free schooling than the pupils of the sophists imbibed
from their expensive education. According to David Edwards, who reviewed "Pirates of the Caribbean:
At World's End," for London's Daily Mirror, the movie cost 150 million British pounds to make, which translates
to $295 million dollars. Did producer Jerry Bruckheimer–whose name is synonymous with Hollywood
blockbuster–get what he paid for? The answer is complex. In two ways yes. In one way, absolutely not.
The more interesting point is the negative one. Here's why, and please bear with me if this review
sounds unorthodox.
A week ago I saw Mike Akel's movie "Chalk," which must have cost about $30,000 to make, quite a bit
short of $295,000,000, specifically about one hundredth of one percent. In other words a producer can
make 10,000 films like "Chalk" for price of one film like "Pirates." "Chalk" uses non-professional actors,
takes places within a single school building in Austin, Texas, and tells a real story from beginning to end,
easy to follow, about a 30-year-old who gives us a job as a computer engineer to become a high-school
history teacher. He thinks he's leaving a stressful gig in the private sector for a rewarding endeavor
shaping young minds, but finds out he's wrong–at least for a while. By the conclusion of this heartfelt
story, we do not know any more than he does whether he will return for a second year. We in the
audience leave the theater feeling emotionally drained, oddly fulfilled. We've had our money's worth,
but unfortunately, though "Chalk" may return its production costs, it will play on so few U.S. screens, that
few Americans will have the good fortune to see it (unless they uncover the title later on DVD and don't
simply bypass it without a second thought). Bottom line: Compared to "Pirates of the Caribbean: At
World's End," "Chalk" is a far superior film–at one hundredth of one percent of the cost. Conclusion:
Considering the enormous cost of "Pirates" versus the far superior quality of "Chalk," you don't always
get what you pay for.
Now as for the two ways that you do get what you pay for, the first is in box office receipts. The second
is in spectacle. As for the first, as you have to do is look at the production notes, which are afforded to
critics, and there you see capitalism rampant, as the marketers are virtually telling us that money equals
quality–or why else would they be bragging about what they earned from previous "Pirates" movies?
Here on p. 20: "....'Dead Man's Chest' garnered more than $1 billion internationally and took third
position for the top-grossing films of all time. ...It's scary when you make a picture that's such a huge
success, confesses Bruckheimer in bragging that the pic made almost double of what the first in the
series took in. On the following page, "The Curse of the Black Pearl was a smash-hit everywhere it
played upon opening on July 9, 2003, amassing a domestic U.S. gross of $305,413,918 million, and
including its record-breaking overseas engagements, a worldwide total of $653,913,918.... Dead Man's
Chest ...upon its opening three-day weekend, the film blew every preceding U.S. box-office record apart,
amassing an astonishing $135,745,219, surpassing the previous champ, 2002's Spider-Man,- by more
than $20 million."
So you see, movie fans, Mr. Bruckheimer and his fellow producers and distributors and theater owners
did get what they paid for. They paid a lot. They took in far more. The implication in all this braggadocio
is that $$$ equals quality. Do you buy this?
As for the third premise, yes, the film company got what it paid for in visuals, but spectacle is just about
all this movie is. If that satisfies you, fine. If you want a story, you'll get chaos, utter confusion. In any
case, before looking at the visuals, it will help in this case to read some spoilers because it helps in
advance to know something about the plot (if that's what they call it), given the difficulty of piecing it
together as you watch the film. A bewigged, effeminate Englishman, Lord Beckett (Tom Hollander),
representing the East India Company, now controls the ghost ship, The Flying Dutchman, employing its
octopus-resembling skipper, Davy Jones (an unrecognizable Bill Nighy). The boat sails about,
vindictively crushing pirate ships, the only hope of stopping it lying in the hands of Will Turner (Orlando
Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley), and Capt. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). This brave trio and
their men must assemble the Nine Lords of the Brethren Court, particularly the missing Capt. Jack
Sparrow (Johnny Depp), who is imprisoned in Davy Jones's Locker. They and others including Tia
Dalma (Naomie Harris), Pintel (Lee Arenberg) and Ragetti (Mackenzie Crook) must go to Singapore
where resides the scarred pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), to pick up charts and a ship to take them to
world's end. The aim: to rescue the hallucinating Jack Sparrow, who sees doubles, triples, quadruples
and more of himself. Nor can these heroes trust one another, as betrayals pile up upon betrayals,
mirroring the civil wars that are taking place before our very eyes, currently in the Middle East.
The target audience for this movie are presumably in their seats not so much for the plot but for, oh,
about three things: 1) Johnny Depp; 2) Orlando Bloom; 3) big spectacle. These they get. And they get
them on and on and on, like junk piled upon trash piled upon slag upon rubble, debris, discard, scrap,
and detritus for a good deal of the interminable two and three-quarter hours. Mostly chaos, little
brilliance, with excuses for swashes and buckling that would make Tyrone Power ("The Black Swan")
either roll over in his grave or laugh out loud. One wonders whether Chow Yun Fat's character in a
production design made up to be 18th century Singapore is a hero or villain (perhaps the scars signal
semiotically that he is the latter) and what credentials Geoffrey Rush's character has that allow him to
marry Will and Elizabeth among other ...[Message truncated]
Edited 5/24/07 by Don D. (Sysop) |
