How to make a successful sequel

Rating: 5/10 (11 July 2006)

Trying to make a successful sequel is an interesting thing. There's a lot of expectation, but where the expectation comes from is contradictory--on one hand, everyone expects the same characters and the same general quality as the first movie; on the other hand, they don't want the same movie with repetitive, tired jokes. In a movie like Pirates of the Caribbean, which is very popular mostly by force of its interesting and dynamic characters, that line is a bit harder to hit because everyone is attached to the characters, but don't want them to ever really be damaged.
I would say then that this is a very successful sequel. It doesn't necessarily rely upon the first movie, but a lot of what is going on is very aware of the first movie's influence on these characters. It brings back almost all of the characters, major and minor, from the previous movie, but it does accept the task of taking the time to develop them. In a sense, a lot of what happens in this film could be considered unnecessary pandering towards icon recognition. In the opposite sense, this movie seems willing to take risks with character development that might not be agreeable. I personally consider the two to even themselves out and create a sufficiently self-contained movie experience.
A major issue with the film is its ultimate tie-in with the next sequel. This movie, like The Matrix Reloaded, is a bridge between two different movies that deal with different issues. It would probably behoove any potential viewers of this movie to understand that while it has a sort of climax, it doesn't really have a complete story-arch. Don't go expecting to have the complete story else you will be very disappointed. Go to see where the next movie will take you and figure out where the character development is going.
Many have said that this film is "dark". I don't really consider a lot of the imagery darker than the original... this one does seem to like its Eldritch horror, but what really makes this movie less light and enjoyable than the first is that for the first time, we see the characters (and especially Jack Sparrow) at their very weakest. Throughout the first movie there's a sense even when things seem to be in conflict that the character's overall capability will eventually work itself out. In this movie, the characters themselves are completely unsure of themselves (the compass, anyone?). This development is actually why I really like this movie by itself: we know Jack the graceful but klutzy looking sort-of-drunk, but now we get to see Jack the nothing seems to be working out serious captain. We also know Elizabeth and Will the lovers, but now we get them not quite knowing what they're doing for each other as well. Because it's such a big change from what they were in the first movie, it does seem almost necessary to have them resolve it over two more movies.
The idea of forcing it into two movies is kind of depressing to me; technically, there is no rule that says a movie must be between one and a half and two hours long. A movie could be a stunning narrative and still be five hours long. However, Hollywood does know audience impatience, and as many people have said about this movie: "It starts to get a bit long..." Nobody seems willing to sit down to watch a complete four-hour narrative, so instead they are more willing to pay the price of two tickets. If that's the way their time is valued, that's the way their time is valued, and I don't think I can really do much about that.
So for what it is, this is a very good movie. The strong parts are the ideas behind the character development (though I still don't think Knightley nor Bloom really have that much ability to carry the weight of serious acting on their shoulders) and the very inventive action. The swashbuckling is presented to quite an extreme degree here, and a lot of it is actually quite surprising in where it goes.
Go out and enjoy it. Most everyone else is.
--PolarisDiB