cathyr19355: Stock photo of myself (Default)
cathyr19355 ([personal profile] cathyr19355) wrote2007-05-29 10:37 pm
Entry tags:

Things Piratical

Last Thursday night, I stupidly risked exhaustion and relapse by going went with [livejournal.com profile] esrblog to see "Pirates of the Caribbean 3--At World's End.

I rather enjoyed it. The plot neatly tied up the threads woven by POTC 2, and had amazing mythic resonance for a story loosely stitched together from stray mythological bits. Keith Richards does indeed show up for a cameo, though his performance is so low key it almost went by without my noticing.

POTC 3 doesn't have the silly fun of POTC 2, or even as much active swashbuckling, but I thought it was a satisfying third chapter to the story. To explain further will involve substantial spoilers, so I will put the rest of this under an lj-cut.

The one problem with the plot is that in a number of places the moviemakers throw in a new and unexpected detail which they then use to set up the next section of the story. For example, we start the movie with a bunch of wretches being hanged. Then the film cuts to a seedy waterfront district in Singapore. Huh? China? Isn't this supposed to be "Pirates of the Caribbean"?

It turns out that our heroes have been sailing all over the world to track down the Nine Pirate Lords who bound the sea goddess Calypso into a human body, years ago, so they can counter the threat posed by the fact that Lord Cutler Beckett (who, after POTC 2, now controls the Flying Dutchman because he has taken possession of Davy Jones's heart) controls the seas and is hanging every pirate he can get his hands on. Oh.

A similarly baffling twist leads to a falling out between Will and Elizabeth. They ultimately reconcile (and are married, by Captain Barbarossa, during one of the biggest sword battles in the entire movie). On the other hand, though they both survive all the derring-do, Elizabeth and Will are doomed not to have a normal married life. (I can't bring myself to explain this development, even in a spoiler stream under an lj-cut; if you like happy endings, be warned, and do not miss the scene that comes after the end of the credits.)

On the plus side, Depp is still in fine form as Jack Sparrow (though there are a few bizarre scenes where we see him talking to multiple alter egos of himself). Moreover, we even--finally--get to see Jack Sparrow sword fighting. In a raging downpour, while standing on one of the crosstrees near the very top of the ship. Don't worry, though. Jack's fight is thoroughly in character. He's fighting because the stakes are finally high enough for him to risk his life. The stakes? Why, immortality, of course. Ironically, Jack doesn't end up claiming his prize.... and his decision positions the franchise well if they should choose to do another sequel.

Enough spoilers already. Go and see the movie, if you haven't done so before you read this. It's worth the ten bucks, at least.

[identity profile] ddelony.livejournal.com 2007-06-01 02:51 am (UTC)(link)
I've seen the first movie, but I have trouble believing that people will pay to see a movie based on an amusement park ride. Now if you excuse me, I have to finish my screenplay for "Tilt-A-Whirl."

[identity profile] matt-arnold.livejournal.com 2007-06-01 09:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Walt Disney Imagineering created a whole new storytelling art form for its parks. It is an environmental experience having no connection to thrill rides such as the tilt-a-whirl. Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion were the earliest classics of this storytelling art form, and these immersive environmental experiences have accumulated countless fans over the decades.

[identity profile] cathyr19355.livejournal.com 2007-06-02 01:57 am (UTC)(link)
I gather you've never been toDisneyland or Disney World. It's more like a Sensurround experience than a ride. I saw the Disneyland version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_%28theme_park_ride%29

[identity profile] ddelony.livejournal.com 2007-06-02 05:25 am (UTC)(link)
I've been to both parks. I just found the idea of basing a movie on a ride somewhat strange. Sure, books, plays, TV shows, even earlier, better movies, but rides? I agree with matt_arnold that Walt was a genius. Unfortunately, I find most latter-day non-Pixar Disney output unbearably cloying!

[identity profile] matt-arnold.livejournal.com 2007-06-02 02:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Throughout the existence of the medium, most of the output of the animation industry in general has been self-imitating. The first style to have any success is immediately aped by an entire country, and the studio that pioneered it immediately stops pioneering.

First it was Disney himself. Then in the nineties there was a renaissance at Disney Feature Animation, which immediately resulted in self-imitation of the nineties theme of an outcast man and the woman who accepts him, followed by their merchandisable animal sidekick and a comedian voice-over.

I think the cloyingness is partly due to studio pressure to create a film that's marketable as toy and clothing merchandise. Only in America is it, since Japan animation's self-imitation is sometimes unbearably cloying but more often tends to deal with mature themes. It was depressing to watch Howl's Moving Castle, in which Studio Ghibli unimaginately rehashes every popular element from their great features.

I expected nothing good from Pirates of the Caribbean, due solely to the awfulness of the film based on the Country Bear Jamboree attraction, and due to the mediocrity of the Haunted Mansion film, and especially due to Modern Disney's reputation for raping its own heritage. When I saw the first PotC, I left the theater in a state of surprised bliss. The glorious music, the script, the acting, everything was in place for a movie of rare quality. The nostalgia of my childhood in Walt Disney World was the icing on the cake.

[identity profile] matt-arnold.livejournal.com 2007-06-02 03:47 pm (UTC)(link)
There is so much to say about this that I think I will post about it in my own blog.