Seriously, enough is enough.

Rating: 3/10 (31 May 2011)

The one word I kept repeating as I watched Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was, "Why?" Why haven't they explained the disappearance of the characters from the previous films? Why are mermaids a complete ripoff of sirens? Why was this movie made???
All questions aside, let's go through the brief synopsis. The film opens with the Spanish discovering a book that leads to the fountain of youth. Jump to London, we find Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and his first mate Gibbs (Kevin McNally) in a tight bind (per usual). In an attempt to acquire a new ship, he runs into an old flame, Angelica (Penélope Cruz). Without giving away too much, Sparrow and Angelica wind up on Captain Blackbeard's boat (Ian McShane), who is also in search of the fountain.
Meanwhile, Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush), under orders of the King of England, is on a mission to beat the Spanish to the fountain. Though his pirate roots run deep, he uses the English for his own personal gain, the reason for which is revealed later.
To be honest, there isn't much to the story without revealing some marginally important plot points like relationships being revealed and character histories. Here's what you need to know, there are three main parties rushing towards the fountain of youth. They all cross each other's paths from time to time, and they each have their own motives for reaching the fountain. To use the fountain's powers they must perform a ritual that requires two silver cups from Ponce de Leon, a tear from a mermaid, and a human sacrifice.
Let's start with what works, as that list is the shortest. The special effects are decent. Nothing new from the previous films, just decent. Depp hasn't lost a step with Captain Jack, though he hasn't learned any new tricks. Not a good thing, not a bad thing. The same goes for Rush. To be honest, that's all I have to say as far as compliments go, and those weren't really compliments. More like aspects of the film that I didn't strongly dislike.
I'll begin with the action. Over the top is one way to describe it. Boring is another. I think it's best to call it pointless. There are chases and sword fights that seem to go on and on when there was really no need for it. There is a part where two opposing characters are about to face off, swords in hand, fire in their eyes. Just before they face off with their bands of troops behind them, Jack Sparrow steps in, noting that it is only the two men who have the conflict. A valid argument, but the men fight anyways. The fight is eerily similar to the one that took place at the end of the first Pirates movie. How interesting.
The story? Flawed. It comes off as if it were written to be made into a video game. There are small quests, puzzles, and sword fights galore. Every bit of which is predictable as the one before it. Accompanying this story is a cast of new characters, also predictable and uninteresting. For the fourth straight movie we meet a new pirate captain, one that is supposedly unbeatable, infamous for past battles. The writers are running out of pirate lore to exploit. Who is next? Captain Hook? Sandwich? Morgan?
This is by far the most violent Disney film ever. I'm not just talking about a few bad guys meeting their untimely end via a distant explosion. For those interested in preserving the shock, skip this paragraph. A MAN IS STRIPPED OF HIS FLESH! Yeah. Don't be fooled by the Disney logo at the beginning. There is some pretty wild stuff here. It's one thing to show living (sort of dead) pirates. It's a horse of a different color when a live pirate gets the arch of the covenant treatment. There are several others attacked by sea creatures while others just get capped. On the whole a lot of death.
So who is behind this? The blame could lie on Rob Marshall, whose previous work is primarily show-stopping musical pieces like Chicago and Nine. As easy as it is to blame him I don't think he has much to do with it. It has an almost identical look to the other films, which begs the question who has the bigger influence, Rob Marshall (Gore Verbinski for the previous three films) or producer Jerry Bruckheimer? I'm better on Bruck. This is his baby and I'm sure he has the final say.
Back to my original question of "why?" In short, the answer is money. The previous two sequels made a large, and I mean large, sum of cash. Although I highly doubt this one will be as successful, I'm sure they will get their money's worth and then some. Money aside I honestly can't see why this film was made. It completely abandons several key characters from the previous films and in the end, I'm sorry to say, takes us nowhere. It is a zero gain. At least in the other films there was some sort of terror or element that could potentially lead to the end of the world. Not here. Sorry. Nada.
Save you money for something worth while. And do not, DO NOT, see this in 3D. I saw this in standard definition and it was fine. With the money you spend on 3D you can have a couple of months worth of Netflix movies. That is a much better deal.