May 25, 2007

Hopefully at Trilogy's End, Too


So, thankfully, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is quite good. I also hope it's the last Pirates film for reasons that I can't discuss without spoiling the end (spoiler discussion at the end of this.) It's too long, but so were the other two Pirates movies. It's confusing, but so were the other two Pirates movies. It's a bit full-of-showoffiness, but so were the other two Pirates movies. This one has a handful of very well-done action sequences (I particularly enjoyed the "Up is Down" sequence as well as the entire battle sequence at the end, which is exhaustive to say the least.)

I was also extremely overwhelmingly happy that the two people who come out of this movie most glowingly were Keira Knightley and Geoffrey Rush. Keira has come a long way since the first Pirates movie (including that well-deserved Oscar nod for Pride & Prejudice) and she actually gets stuff to do in this movie! She's actually At World's End's main character if you consider that pretty much all the action revolves around her and she's always there whereas the others (including Depp's Jack Sparrow) disappear at times. And, yes, it was so good having Rush back in the pirate life. He's so good in the role of Barbossa.

I also loved the production design. That opening sequence in Singapore was like a gift for my eyes, as was the Shipwreck Cove set. Delish. The visual effects were also quite amazing and it certainly looks like the crew here will be winning their second Oscar (now that Spider-Man 3 is surely well and truly out of the running and I wouldn't even say is guaranteed for a nod. I mean, Revenge of the Sith didn't even get nommed and everyone assumed that nod was a given.) The costume was also series-best work and I would love to see Penny Rose finally get a nomination for her stellar work on all three films (how has she gone un-nominated?)

On the negative side, the storyline involving Naomie Harris' Calypso was so completely and utterly confusing that I sort of gave up trying to follow it (apparently she's some human-form version of the ocean spirits? I dunno. Surely they could've created the maelstrom out of something else and save all the confusion.) And with so many people backstabbing one another and then backstabbing others and side characters popping up to backstab someone it was all a bit much at one stage.

Overall though I quite liked it and I'm gonna give it a B.

**The following is spoiler stuff for the end of the movie. Don't read if you don't want to know**


I hope this is the last movie they make in the Pirates, because if you stayed until the end of the credits there was that sequence set ten years later! Keira's character doesn't look remotely different - couldn't they have done some sort of makeup job on here? A few wrinkles? Still, it's ten years later. Are they gonna release another one in three years and have all the cast look the exact same? I'm sure that Disney will get another film out of this series at some point (there are new Die Hard, Rambo and Indiana Jones movies coming afterall), so maybe let the franchise rest at three when the story naturally ends and just wait a decade or so before bringing it out of retirement. At least Keira and Orlando might look their age a bit more then.

7 comments:

J.D. Judge said...

I don't see what was so confusing about the Calypso storyline.

(SPOILER)
She's the goddess of the sea (I think, they never made clear of what) and for a reason they didn't tell why the First meeting imprisoned her in human form because Davy Jones told them how, and they were in love. And she's made of crabs.
(END SPOILER)

Okay, maybe it is a little confusing, but I thought Harris did a phenominal job, and I'm very glad they gave her a significantly bigger storyline than in that second one, and Keira surprised me. I absolutely thought she was incredible in P&P, and she was pretty good in the first one, and then, out of nowhere, she's important! And she's great! WHOO!!!!

And yeah, like I said, it's technically the best of the series (and for me) could be better than the first one. Could. Maybe. And then I remembered something: The longer something is, the more epic it is, the more I LOVE IT. The Return of the King, of course, proves this for me. 3 hrs and 20 min and I saw 5 times in theatres, a record for me. I should remember that more often.

****/**** for me. (I don't really like using letter grades, since it just complicates things for me and anyone trying to decipher them)

Kamikaze Camel said...

See, I don't like using numbers because there's not enough of them. Plus, using letters, I find that it feels like my own system. B+ means my own meaning, whereas 3/4 is, like, universal and I know my grades aren't universal.

...ya know?

Anyway, Pirates. Longer doesn't always mean better for me. The first is still the best in my eyes. I feel like I could rewatch that one a lot, whereas the last two not so much. But for what it was, it was done well.

So much better than Spider-Man 3 bah bow!

J.D. Judge said...

Well, yeah. I can see why, but I don't really like getting into too much specifics in grading, since it just gets to messy. Yet I get into as freaking specific as possible in the awards (working on them in draft at this moment), it's weird.

And yeah, longer doesn't mean better either, but I don't believe in coincidences, and I freaking love epic/finale/LONG films, so it's apparently predetermined that I will like them.

Does that make any sense? Because if it does to you, I might think you're God... (I'm going to Hell and I know it...)

adam k. said...

I'm gonna be in NY next week for 5 days, and I'll have a lot to do while I'm there. I suppose I have to see Spring Awakening, plus about a million "NYC only" movies, like Jindabyne, Ten Canoes, Away From Her, Bug, and whatever else might be there right now.

I wonder what's actually playing...

Kamikaze Camel said...

Oh, I love going into the city to see movies. For me it's only an hour-long train ride and lately we've been getting the movies in my city anyway, but it's exciting. And I am a geek, yes.

I would have thought Bug was available in most places though. It was released to 1600 cinemas afterall.

J.D. Judge said...

Yeah, it's at my theatre, which didn't get Marie Antoinette or Curse of the Golden Flower (with constant TV ads) when they were 1100+ theatres, yet got Volver for some reason (not that it wasn't good, but I think I was one of 7 who saw it that week it was there). It baffles me. Currently there is:

3 Screens for Spidey
3 Screens for Shrek
3 Screens for PIRATES!!!!!!!!
1 Screen (each) for 28 Weeks Late, Disturbia, and Bug
And Georgia Rule has one of Spidey's screens's showtimes.

I made a post long ago about this stupidity.

Kamikaze Camel said...

The 12-plex cinema in my cinema is currently screening six movies. It's pretty dire.

I mean, even the other 7-plex cinema in my city is playing around 10 movies. Six is all a bit terrible, really. Couldn't they stand to pick up something from the big cities like The Lives of Others (a big box office hit here) or Paris Je'taime (which I just found out the other night is coming to the 7-plex cinema so YAY!) or Noise, which is making more and more $$$ each passing week (amazingly for an Aussie flick).

Cinemas don't make much sense to me sometimes.