When one considers the likes of "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," one must remember that some in Hollywood are like the title characters. By that, I mean they'll do most anything to make money, including plundering former works if it means a surefire way to easy cash. Of course, one must also remember that such "pirates" usually put a lot of money into their efforts to make money, so one can't exactly fault them for being capitalistic in such regards.
The problems, however, are two-fold. First, they're dealing with a form of artistry. Yes, some films are artier than others and there are those who push the very boundaries of what defines art. Whatever the case, people enjoy them for what they are, and the better ones (including those existing just as pure entertainment) often get something of a rarified status where fans hope those with the checkbooks don't somehow foul the memories and/or experiences of said films with any sort of follow-up. Sadly, the conflict between desiring profit and making "art" often means the latter suffers in one way or another.
Perhaps the bigger issue -- especially with blockbuster films -- is what I've always deemed the "Temple of Doom" disease. That's named after the second Indiana Jones film where those involved either forgot what made the original pic so enjoyable or simply felt that they had to one-up the predecessor in something akin to a "bigger is better" fix for their "users." You can substitute any number of films for "Indy 2" (the second and third "Matrix" films, for instance) and still get the same result -- sequels that tried too hard yet failed to capture the magic from the first time around.
All of which brings us back around to this sequel to the immensely popular, surprisingly well made, and quite entertaining "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl." Released back in 2003, it surprised even industry insiders both in terms of its artistic qualities as well as box office performance (especially since it was based on a Disney theme park attraction). Just as was done with the first "Matrix" flick as well as "Back to the Future," however, returning director Gore Verbinski and producer Jerry Bruckheimer have taken what was a terrific standalone picture and turned it into just the first part of an unnecessary trilogy (at least in terms of storytelling).
From a financial standpoint, one can't blame them or the releasing studio. After all, Part Deux should be a resounding financial success. But the question remains whether they've bastardized the first film and our fond memories of it in order to make a buck. The answer is sort of, but not entirely to the point of making one want to make the series -- and those responsible for it -- walk the cinematic gangplank.
Speaking of gangs, most all of them -- in front of and behind the camera -- are back for more supernaturally tinged swashbuckler escapades. Accordingly, the film has a certain familiarity that works both to its advantage and disadvantage. On the plus side, everyone already knows the characters and general story setup, so introductions and exposition are already out of the way.
Yet, that very factor means this film is missing the originality, spontaneity and surprise that made its predecessor so much fun. Thus, while Johnny Depp does his fey pirate bit, Orlando Bloom swashes his buckles, Keira Knightly looks ravishing, and a ghostly crew of pirates shows up from their watery graves, it all feels comfortable rather than inventive and new. It's not a horrible fault, but the result is a film that feels far less special but also longer than the original (despite both running somewhere near the same amount of time).
Perhaps not that surprisingly, it almost feels like a theme park attraction based on a film (thus, I guess, making the process complete from ride to movie and then back to "ride"), where spectacle is more important than story, and everything feels more like a pumped up highlight than an integral part of an overall film.
Granted, some of those highlights are nevertheless rather fun to behold, including an escape from some cannibals (complete with plenty of ravine-inspired, action/adventure elements), a three-way swordfight (including on, in and around a huge mill wheel that's broken free from its supports) and various giant marine mollusk encounters that would make Jules Verne proud.
And then there's Mr. Depp reprising his silly pirate performance to equally fun effect (the looks, mannerisms and vocal delivery are still entertaining to behold), even if that originality has all but evaporated. But much of the film often looks and feels as if his intoxicated yet flamboyant character both directed and edited the effort as it's all over the map on both counts with a flimsy narrative thread barely holding it all together.
There's a trip to see a voodoo priestess (Naomie Harris doing some sort of stereotypical accent so thickly that her dialogue is slurred nearly to the point of not sounding like English) that doesn't amount to much. Material featuring some returning characters (played by Jack Davenport and Jonathan Pryce among others) comes off the same, while Ms. Knightly is relegated for far too long posing as a man on a ship, when not out of the picture altogether.
That said, Stellan Skarsgård is rather good as a half-dead sailor who doesn't want the same fate to befall his son, while Bill Nighy -- as Davy Jones (no not the Monkee) -- battles to get some personality out from behind all of the latex and computer-generated effects that all but bury his normally wonderfully expressive, yet deadpan expression. The makeup, production and effects crews all deliver topnotch quality, but like the rest of the film, you can't help but feel that they have gone overboard in their efforts.
Featuring some fun elements and the return of Depp's appealing anti-hero character, the picture isn't without its share of winning moments. Yet, the novelty, cohesiveness, and magical spark that fueled the original have been replaced by the rampant, artificial grandiosity of it all. "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" doesn't necessarily run aground, but it never really gets anywhere while making a spectacle of itself in some shallow waters. The film rates as a 4.5 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
