So a new Pirates movie has hit, and in the spirit of my previous in-depth analysis, I thought I'd come to this one with some critical observations, as well. I was struck by... I don't know, by the sort of indescribable character of this movie. Try to describe the plot. You can't. Try to describe the themes or the core relationships. You can't. It was sort of overwhelming.
Obviously this has caused a wide array of critical reactions. Richard Schickel gives the film a reasonable characterization, although he didn't seem entertained by his findings: "They're everywhere, these not-so-merry miscreants — in Singapore, in Antarctica, on a desert island, in a secret pirate cove, riding mid-ocean waterfalls (very odd, that bit), exchanging broadsides while being whirled about in a maelstrom. It is very exhausting, and it makes no sense whatsoever." Here you have a good idea of the impression people got from At World's End... strange and incoherent, engaging in its eccentricity, but generally unfathomable.
There's something weird that shows up in these reviews, though; when they reject the movie for its strangeness, these reviewers also snark cynically at the public approval the film is bound to receive. Schickel ends his review by suggesting that "some close variant" of his Pirates III criticism "could be written week-in, week-out every summer movie season." Similarly, and even more cynically, Frank Swietek of One Guy's Opinion says Pirates III "will doubtless repeat the inexplicable boxoffice success of its predecessor — testimony to the lemming-like proclivity of today’s audiences not only to rush to even the worst retreads but in some cases to do so repeatedly." Damn! Such contempt!
But what are we really critiquing here? Seriously — was it too confusing for the critics? In the work of some filmmakers, we see ambiguity and lack of resolution as assets. In the case of a Disney movie, have we no option but to recast them as "confusion" and "lack of focus" and to reject them as failures? Critics need to work out their demands — you can't judge a movie negatively for being weird, incoherent, and dense, and at the same time, criticize it for being another piece of meaningless Hollywood trilogy fluff.
Article comments
1 - Claire
I'm glad I read your review. I was a bit disappointed by the film because of its incoherence. However, I did enjoy all the parts you describe here, so perhaps I wasn't disappointed, simply confused.
2 - Phil Ryan
People seem to forget that movies are about entertainment... at least the film critics too often do. I went to this film with my teenage kids, and we all had a ball: it was great fun! It was crazy silly stupid unreal but fun!
Thanks for the nice intellectual comments on the film though... they will go down well in arguments against the too-stuffy-by-half brigade who would criticize anything just because it is designed as blockbuster.
3 - couch tato
hmm u bring an interestin view about mullholand dr which i spent a sleepless night tryin to figure it out
i loved this flickbut my main disappointment was introducing too many characters and storylines all in one go which they could have done before
it left me confused and unhappy to say the least...the supersaturated this thing
4 - Mukta
This was a great review.
Before watching it, my husband and I thought that with all the average reviews,this movie must have failed in a way that most sequels do- failing to bring something new to powerful first n second parts.We just went to watch out of loyalty to ol'Jack -to see what he is upto now, but we were surprised. For a change, it wasnt just Dep's creation that held centre stage. The scenes you mentioned were a delightful surprise-providing the perfect combination with Jack's madness,and their pointlessness was refreshing,it was intellectually stimulating and I couldnt even tell why and how before i read your review!
5 - Jesse
Hey, thanks for the comments, everybody. It's great to see that mass culture hasn't numbed our brains past the point of discussion and mutual appreciation.