Movie Review - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
User Rating:

2007 / 168 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz
Now this is more like it.
The original “Pirates”, you may remember, was one of those films that I hyped to the moon upon initial reviewing, not unlike the original “Spider Man”. I loved it. It was a breath of fresh air in a summer filled with the stock car chases, explosions and superheroes. At last, here was a summer movie I hadn’t been watching in one form or another every summer for the past ten years. It was distinctive, unique and, above all, fun. Perhaps I overrated it, but it has held up better than “Spider Man”, another film I personally overrated (sorry, Spidey). Personally, I’d rather see sword fights and cannon battles than speeches about responsibility. “Spider Man” is probably a better movie, but the original “Pirates” is infinitely more fun.
Then the second “Pirates” movie came along and screwed everything up. Suddenly that breath of fresh air had become a stale breeze thanks to an overly convoluted, cash-in sequel. Like the “Shrek” sequels, the second “Pirates” movie seemed to exist simply to sell Happy Meals. The sense of fun was largely missing. The movie focused entirely too much on a script that struggled to establish an underlying mythology but instead succeeded in being, by turns, boring and confusing. Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow character was possibly the biggest problem. He was given no clever new dialogue and was given essentially nothing to do. He wobbled along the margins of the film, looking nearly as lost as those of us in the audience.
I had little hope left going into the third “Pirates” film. As we all know, this is a surefire recipe for entertainment. Lowered expectations always help. But I didn’t expect much from the second film either and it still pissed me off. Gore Verbinski and the rest of his crew have jettisoned much of what made the second film so intolerable and have delivered more of what made me love “Pirates” in the first place. In short, they’ve brought back the fun.
“At World’s End” begins with a rousing musical number of sorts (it’s low key, but it’s still a musical number) and then launches right into Singapore, where Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) are trying to recruit help, acquire a ship, and steal a magical map (in the “Pirates” films all instruments of navigation are magical, if they were set in modern times someone would have a GPS that could guide them to Valhalla). All of which will help them rescue Jack Sparrow, who was last seen disappearing down the gullet of an enormous sea beastie, and thwart the world domination schemes of the East India Trading Co., led by Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). The second film’s baddie, Davy Jones (the always wonderful Bill Nighy) is now under the direct control of the East India Trading Co. (you know what, I’m getting tired of typing all that so they’ll be called EITCO for the remainder of this review). As this film opens, Davy is cruising the seas destroying any ship that Beckett commands. Having the all-powerful Davy Jones under the command of an odious little bureaucrat should remove some of the character’s potency, but that’s actually not the case at all. If anything, Davy is an angrier and more interesting villain this time around. He chafes under the yoke of Cutler’s command and the fury is evident in his eyes, no matter how much CGI may surround them. In the second film he wasn’t very interesting, but this new development makes him practically captivating. Davy Jones is a once-all-powerful entity pissed at his subjugation and eager to reclaim his former glory. He even has a moment or two of pathos. That’s a lot more exciting than him simply being some tentacle-face who wants to get even with Jack Sparrow.
Speaking of Captain Jack, he’s got his nuts back in this one. He’s got all the swaggering, drunken glory he had the first time around. The screenwriters, Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, have given him great, quotable dialogue once again, not just vague references to a lack of rum. His dialogue is still a bit overly ornate at times but, hell, at least it’s funny. Not only that, but we get more of a sense of his schemes and desires this time around. Jack is more interesting when he’s got his own agenda, one that’s a secret to virtually everyone around him. He wasn’t this exciting when he was running from a supernatural aquatic loan shark. Judging by “Dead Man’s Chest”, I thought perhaps that Jack was a one-joke character and that one movie had used up all the material he offered. After his dynamic presence in this one, however, I could easily stomach three more Captain Jack adventures, provided Depp was in as fine a form as he is here.
Even Orlando and Keira’s characters are given some interesting developments this time around. In that area, this film is an improvement over even the first one. In the other two pictures, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann were bland ciphers that existed simply to propel the plot forward. Here, more than any of the others, they seem like genuine, three-dimensional people with wants, desires and plans of their own. They’re still the most boring part of these movies, but anyone would look boring next to Johnny Depp’s elaborately designed Captain Sparrow.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that while the screenplay that Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio have crafted still has some minor problems (it’s too damn long, for one thing, even though I was pretty masterfully entertained I still got tired of sitting in the theater by the time the credits rolled) it’s a good example of the sort of craftsmanship a summer blockbuster should contain. It juggles a lot of characters and keeps them all rather interesting (I haven’t even mentioned the coolness of Naomie Harris, returning as the Rastafarian gypsy from the second film, with gained dimensions and her own set of schemes). It has a great plot that effortlessly establishes a sense of mythology while still making room for exciting action, hilarious gags, interesting asides and some good, old-fashioned David Lynchian weirdness (witness, for example, Captain Jack’s turn in Davy Jones’ locker). All of which makes this film a lot more fun, and a lot more distinctive than most things you’re likely to see this summer. Between the “Pirates” franchise and the elegant, modern “Zorro” movies, Elliot and Rossio seem determined to bring the swashbuckler back to life. If they do as good a job with all their other attempts, I wish more power to them. I would personally like to see what they would do with the Robin Hood legend. Sure, Costner and his cronies did a good one about sixteen years ago, but that’s a story I wouldn’t mind seeing again.
A more laid-back, confident screenplay also seems to have given Gore Verbinski more free reign as well. He and his conspirators concoct a marvelous visual canvas. They stage some magnificent spectacle and deliver some stunning visuals that further enhance the story to be told. The sequence at the end of the world, for example, is silly, visually stunning and inventive on a grand scale. The same could be said for Davy Jones ’s locker. There is some truly magical imagery onscreen. I was dazzled a lot more than I expected to be. Gore Verbinski and his effects crew have clearly plumbed the depths of their imagination for this one, and it shows.
Not only is this a vast improvement over the second film (the fact that I didn’t want to walk out is testament enough to that) but it’s a glorious example of how a movie can provide eye candy, generous helpings of fun, and give you a little something to think about as well. I didn’t like it as well as I liked the original film, but I can’t honestly think of anything I disliked about it either. It’s silly, but not nearly as silly as “Spider Man 3”. It’s long, but I was never bored by it. It even has moments of tenderness and pathos woven in amongst the grand action and delirious fun. If you’re looking for an entertaining diversion to kill two and a half hours, “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” is a marvelous option. It’ll engage your senses and still respect you in the morning.
P.S. Stick around after the credits. Trust me, it’s worth it.
P.P.S. EITCO. There. I used it again.
[tags]Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Gore Verbinski, Dale Nauertz, Valhalla, Jack Sparrow[/tags]

(4 votes, average: 3.25 out of 4)
May 26th, 2007 at 8:12 am
I haven’t even seen two yet. I guess I should, I dunno. Is it worth seeing II for III?
May 26th, 2007 at 10:55 am
In a word, Elk: No. All you have to know about II is that the East India Trading Company (or EITCO) wants control of the world’s oceans. They acquire the heart of Davy Jones because whoever has it controls him and the world’s oceans. Davy wants Jack Sparrow because Sparrow made a deal with him to get the Black Pearl. At the end, Davy catches up with him and Jack gets eaten by a large fish or something. Also, it turns out Will Turner (Orlando)’s dad is a cursed soul aboard Jones’s ship, the Flying Dutchman. That’s basically it. Oh, and Barbosa comes back at the end. There, now you’re ready for the third one…if you wish.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Hmm… I dunno… Thanks, though…
May 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I can’t forgive them for Dead Man’s Chest. This could be the most critically beloved movie of 2007 and I would not see it in the theater. They will not be able to add my $8.75 (or whatever it is these days) to their coffers.
No, that money will be making it’s way into the box office returns for Transformers: The Movie thank you very much!
May 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I’ll probably see it, but I’m still not convinced about “Transformers: The Other Movie”. I just…can’t care. I didn’t care about the original cartoon, and I can’t bring myself to care about the live action movie. However, I did just see a TV commercial for it where one of the robots talked to that Shia LeDouche kid, and the robot sounded exactly like one of the original, cartoony Transformers.
By the way, I’m not sure why you and Ben are hot and bothered about the Transformers interacting with the humans in this movie so much. From what I’ve seen of the cartoon, it was ALL about the robots interacting with the humans. That’s all they friggin’ did!
May 30th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Big fan of the orginal cartoon, as a young teenager in the 80’s, I had a staple diet of Transformers and He-man - Masters of the Universe.
I find the look of the new Transformers a worry. They look too technical. I used to love that when the Cartoon Transformers used to be in robot form, you could tell what vehicle they where. In the trailers that I have seen, they look like a twisted mess of wires and cables.
Also, did Michael Bay just see the Citreon commercial on TV and decide that he wanted to do a Transformers movie?
Mike
Sydney
May 31st, 2007 at 9:19 am
They actually didn’t interact with the humans that much in the original cartoon, although those parts were the weakest elements of the original movie in my opinion. Hence I was quite hesitant about this live action movie. But I did say long ago that all they had to do to get my ass in a seat opening weekend would be to put the transforming sound from the cartoon in the trailer and they did. So I’m going to get in there!
It probably won’t be very good, but I try to be a man of my word at least 90% of the time.
It sounds like Bessa and I had the same diet during the 80’s. It was pretty much a main course of Transformers and He-Man with a side of G.I. Joe. Those were good times!
Haven’t seen the new Citroen ad. I guess I will have to go dig it up to see what it’s like.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am
Bessa is absolutely right. The reason I think this movie looks sub-par is simply that the robots just look like a big pile of wires and random metal. The robots just don’t look that cool. If the robots looked cooler, I’d be more psyched.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I agree the robots have too many wires and gears. However if they looked like photorealistic versions of the originals it probably wouldn’t look very good on screen or perhaps even stupid. They were simple back then because it was a cartoon and people had to draw every frame. A movie needs texture.
I’m sure Dale and Jones have heard me say a zillion times “people only notice detail if it’s not there” and this is probably an example of that.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Trust Ben to bring logic into an arguement.
You do have a valid point. I just liked the fact that you could recognise a robot by the look of them, and from what I have seen of the trailer, all the robots look the same. How can we tell Jazz apart from Bumblebee if they all look the same?
We will have to wait and see, I guess.
Mike
Sydney
July 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Man, that was probably the stupidest movie i’ve ever seen. It was fairly fun in places, but the ridiculousness of the ‘plot’ slowly sapped my enjoyment. There’s overblown, and there’s just plain stupid. It was also way too long. And the amount of retreads of the jokes from the previous movies was terrible.