Bizarre, and without the "Swashbuckling" Spirit

Rating: Null/10 (14 July 2003)

I guess many may find it strange that I would be disappointed in a movie like this. But I love a good swashbuckler, and this film would seem to be a great opportunity to make just that. But it is not one, its just, in a word, WEIRD. "Pirates of the Caribbean" is a very strange movie. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but this film just doesn't have the spirit of the old fashioned pirate films, or, despite the many references to it, the ride it was based on.
What was I expecting? I guess a film that was at least in the tradition of "The Mask of Zorro," or if we want to dip into the serial age, Errol Flynn's "Captain Blood" or "Robin Hood." People might claim that the cliches of these films are old and uninteresting, and that the other attempts to imitate them did not go over well (many will site "Cutthroat Island.") But I don't think it would have been that hard for the producers of this film to come up with something that had a traditional, fun, engaging, and original storyline. "Zorro," "The Three Musketeers," and Kevin Costner's "Robin Hood" arguably held their audiences and entertained them, without the absence of this rousing spirit. Some might even claim that "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy has swashbuckler-pirate film influences.
"Pirates of the Caribbean" has a bizarre plot and even stranger characters. I still can't really explain what this film was about--not what one would expect from a straight-pirate movie. The plot involves pirates who are "undead." I have no problem with that--in fact, the movie would have been great if it had been influenced by "Army of Darkness." The undead skeletons of this movie wearily drag their feet along, argue with each other, and act miserable. Other than a few monologues on how it really sucks to be dead, I never really got the feeling that these pirates were really that bad-off. After all, they can't be "killed" this way (which somewhat makes the sword-fights irrelevant.) An even bigger mystery to me was why these pirates needed to be STOPPED from lifting their curse. I'm sure it was right there in the script (I believe it had something to do with the safety of those whose blood was needed to lift it) but this never really added any urgency to the plot.
The bottom line seems to be that nobody is ever having much fun on the screen; even Johnny Depp, for all of his eccentricities, never seems to be enjoying himself. Orlando Bloom expressed delight in counting his number of kills and in sliding down the smooth stones of a castle, shooting arrows in "The Two Towers," yet he never does anything like that here. On a level that is rather un-PC, I'm sure that in many ways it would have been a blast to have been a pirate! Nobody seems to believe that in this movie. The pirates on the ride sure did--they drank, they sang, they raped and pillaged, and burned villages to the ground. The pirates in this movie just lumber, whine and argue with each other. They do some plundering but never seem too thrilled about it. Where's all the drunken debauchery? This movie needed more of that. It also needed the partying band of skeletons from "Army of Darkness," a campy and fearful villain (Jeffrey Rush could have still played the part), and a hero in the tradition of the films I have mentioned above.
There are some positives. The props and ships are impressive, the special effects and cinematography are quite good, and there was much thought put into the elaborate (although strangely isolated) set pieces. I guess I am glad that this movie is doing well, in that it may bring back the genre. But "Pirates of the Caribbean" probably doesn't deserve to be the movie to do that. Grade: C