didn't deserve so much hype in the Summer 2003

Rating: 5/10 (29 March 2006)

Like musicals, the pirate movie fell a little into oblivion these last years. There were endeavors to revive it but ended either in artistic failure. "Pirates" (1986) by Roman Polanski enters this category, a project whose preparation was long and arduous and in the end, it was a very impersonal amount and Polanski's absolute nadir of his career with the desultory "What?" (1972). Then, "Cutthroat Island" (1995) was a contender for the genre but ended in a financial fiasco. Nearly a decade later, Gore Verbinski with whom, a good majority of cine buffs had unearthed in him palpable skills in directing with the chilling "the Ring" (2002) and under the command of the Disney firm embarked on a new ship. Direction: the pirate island with the well-intentioned will to restore once for all the reputation of the pirate movie. Unfortunately, he didn't arrive at the end of his trip. His ship fell through. It was a profitable blockbuster for the mighty producer Jerry Bruckheimer who once again lined his pockets. Artistically, well let's be as nice as possible and it will be hard because I had relied on the director of "the Ring" to rejuvenate the pirate movie and to deliver a solid entertaining film. My hopes were blighted.
It was maybe a mistake to have entrusted him a big-budget film. He seems to have been dwarfed by Bruckheimer's omnipotence. However the latter's trademark is present in virtually each shot, each image of the venture and there's nothing wrong about it: exotic landscapes, lush scenery, lavish costumes, grand score, a whiff of epic movie, pursuits galore, naval engagements, a dash of fight and fusillades sequences and of course, perhaps the indispensable element: swashbuckler which was a specialty of French cinema in the sixties, helped by the unparalleled Jean Marais. There was everything in the same package which brought out a conducive odor to entice and charm the greatest number of viewers.
Alas! "Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl" is partly plagued by a derivative directing which can't live up to the enormous means and budget the film had at its disposal. Verbinski had been more inspired with "the Ring". However, one can feel a buoyant will from Verbinski to film his story. It's true, there's a perennial humor difficult to resist, fast-paced action. There were also visible efforts on the costumes and scenery. Everything to inspire a good amount to dream, liberty to the audience. But Verbinski sedately shoots Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom)'s adventure to find again Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) and in the end, the whole smells the reheated. The movie also could have gained by being curtailed of about half an hour.
Verbinski's vehicle is also handicapped by its scenario and it's perhaps what hampers most the success of the film. "The Ring" had a quite strong screenplay in store but here, it's a snap, slick one. Yes, there are some neat twists to keep the audience interested until the tail end but it also encapsulates major, unacceptable drawbacks which are nonsensical in the story as a whole. So, the malicious pirates took Elizabeth hostage to help them to find a treasure which would make them human beings again (at night, they turn into living dead) but isn't it an excellent opportunity for them to reinforce and establish their power? No, instead they want to become mortal, flesh and blood men again. Then, in the first minutes of the film, after Elizabeth took Will in, she's looking at the sea and as the mist clears away, she can see a pirate ship because of the black flag. The pirate ship is close enough to enable the crew on board to see Elizabeth's ship, so why isn't there a naval engagement? It's also hard to swallow the story of Will's father and the scenarists could have found a better and less far-fetched way to make Depp and Knightley meet. The latter wears a dress with a more than fitted waist and because of this, she falls (from a high height) into the sea (you have to see the sequence to understand it and to realize how ludicrous it is). But fortunately, Depp was in the surroundings... you can guess the rest. There's also some filler in the scenario (when Depp and Knightley are on the desert island).
The actors partially redeem the whole. Johnny Depp plays his game well. His mix of gravity and mockery spices up the story. Geoffrey Rush also takes the lion's share about the quality of the acting. But Orlando Bloom delivers a rather wooden acting and Keira Knightley doesn't really display skills of thespian.
"Pirates of the Carabbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl" is plagued by a shoddy story which should have been more stringent. There are also flashy special effects and a mundane directing. To some extent, some qualities of "the Ring" which had contributed in cementing its stance of winner have turned into drawbacks here. Once again, there's no accounting for taste but this blockbuster isn't the guarantee of a quality entertaining movie. But the majority of the audience doesn't seem to have this problem. A sequel will reach the streets this summer. Will it be worthwhile?