Far more predictable than anything in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was the critical pile-on that greeted its release. Considering that the reviews have gotten progressively worse since the first film in the series, did anyone really think that the fourth entry was going to be met with rapturous applause? And yet, I find it impossible to join in the apparent fun of the bash-fest. Oh, it’s not that I think this latest film in the Pirates franchise is a great work, or that it improves all that much on the last one—but then I didn’t dislike the last one.
However, On Stranger Tides does pretty much what it sets out to do—play up and on those things that have worked in the previous films. It’s a lot like one of the later Bing Crosby-Bob Hope “Road” Pictures—say Road to Bali (1952). It’s not up to the best, but it has enough of what you want—assuming, of course, that you like the other movies and the character of Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp)—to make for an agreeable entertainment. Since no film is ever going to duplicate the delightful surprise of the first film—really, who expected a movie based on a theme park ride not to suck?—I’m not sure it’s reasonable to expect much more.
Getting rid of the Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley characters was definitely a good idea, as was bringing in Penelope Cruz’s Angelica—who may or may not be the daughter of Blackbeard the Pirate (Ian McShane)—as semi-love interest and adversary for Jack Sparrow. Cruz and Depp are much more evenly matched, and don’t really need the support of a pair of “juvenile leads.” Proof of this comes in the form of the wanna-be missionary Philip (Brit TV actor Sam Claflin) and his romance with mermaid Syrena (Astrid Berges-Frisbey)—largely extraneous additions that the film blessedly uses very little. Much better is McShane’s Blackbeard, who manages to be genuinely menacing.
The story is no great shakes. It’s all about a search for the Fountain of Youth, with the Spanish after it, King George II (a nice role for Richard Griffiths) after it through the dubious proxy of Capt. Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush), and Blackbeard and Angelica after it with the not-exactly-willing participation of Jack. This does, however, provide ample opportunity for some witty repartee and nicely executed physical comedy. Granted, Keith Richards (in an even briefer appearance) as Jack’s father has the single best line in the film and it comes early on, which poses the problem that nothing ever quite tops it. (Cruz comes close on occasion, especially in her response to Jack accusing her of running “like a girl.”) But in general, it works.
Bringing in Rob Marshall to replace Gore Verbinski may have sounded like a good idea, but it really wasn’t so hot. The film is at its best when Marshall sticks close to the Verbinski approach (which is blessedly most of the time), and its one significant missed opportunity is something Verbinski could have pulled off. There’s a set-up for a terrific gag based on one in Chaplin’s The Gold Rush involving Ponce de Leon precariously balanced on a cliff. Verbinski could have done wonders with this, while Marshall all but ignores it. At least, he manages not to ruin the proceedings in general and keeps the film moving.
The real question, of course, is do you want more of Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow? If you do, I can’t imagine why this won’t please you (though at one point he seems to briefly channel Heath Ledger in Lasse Halstrom’s 2006 Casanova), especially in his scenes with Cruz. If you don’t, why on Earth are you even considering this? Bottom line for me: I enjoyed it and am glad I saw it. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action/adventure violence, some frightening images, sensuality and innuendo.
intense sequences of action/adventure violence, some frightening images, sensuality and innuendo.
Sounds like my kind of picture!
Yeah the MPAA’s criteria for those things may not be yours.
I haven’t seen it, but I have read Tim Powers’s novel On Stranger Tides (in which a sorcerous Blackbeard searches for the Fountain of Youth), and while PotC may have paid him for the title simply to avoid claims of plagiarism, I still want to spread the word about this pretty silly, lots-of-fun novel by one of our best Weird Fantasists writing today.
I liked the first three well enough, though the 3rd one was too long. I mainly go to see Rush’s scene stealing performances. And since my wife wants to see it I’m stuck with it anyhow. May as well enjoy it.
This is much shorter than the third film. Shorter still if you don’t hang around for the inevitable post-credits scene. (If you want to know what it is, e-mail me.)
I have read Tim Powers’s novel On Stranger Tides (in which a sorcerous Blackbeard searches for the Fountain of Youth), and while PotC may have paid him for the title simply to avoid claims of plagiarism
Well, he is searching for the Fountain of Youth and he does have magical powers, so they’s certainly have had a case.
If you want to know what it is, e-mail me.
No need. My wife always wants to sit through the credits to see if there’s a stinger. I also like to see where a movie was filmed and sometimes want to see the music credits when there’s a particularly good number or score.
I hate that the music credits are always at the very end — especially on films like this that are so effects-heavy. I remember someone asking me if there was anything on the end of the first Pirates. I told them “yes.” Then they bitched at me after sitting though 13+ minutes of credits — “That? I sat there for that?” I pointed out that I had only said there was something, not that it was necessarily worth sitting there to get to.
Could be worse. The Lord of the Rings movies credited all the fan club members. They take over 20 minutes to run.
And I thought it was bad back in 2001 when the entire 9th reel of Moulin Rouge! were the credits.
Do I want to see more of Jack Sparrow? No. No I do not. The last installment was meandering and seemed to go on forever. At that point I felt his character was wearing pretty thin. Too thin to support another film. That was a good article though!
Loved the first one (which I’ve seen twice, but not for many years) and didn’t see the previous two sequels. I liked this a lot. I would’ve liked it a real lot if it had been 30 minutes shorter and lost the missionary and mermaid guff. Depp and Cruz are wonderful together, as are McShane, Rush and McNally, but they all felt a little underutilized as the film had to try and fit them all in.
I found this outing to be exactly what I expected; neither better nor worse. But, in a way, I feel slightly disappointed in the sub-par, ordinary nature of it all. Yes, I enjoyed the casting. Cruz and McShane were both nice additions (though I, personally, wanted more menace from McShane; but I certainly didn’t expect that from Disney). I thought the mermaid scene was a definite standout highlight. But having a ‘good’ mermaid emerge from the chaos, felt like an eye-rolling misstep. The romance subplot that came from that was too minor to bother me, but it did feel incredibly cliché and tacked on – as if they just had to have something to compensate for the lack of past piratey romance.
On a side note: I may be the only one who feels this way, but I’d bet money that the script borrowed heavily from the Spielberg playlist. Go back and watch the ending of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and just look at the uncanny resemblance to the ending of this. I know this happens all the time, but that ending is just a fresh coat of paint… so to speak.
Ultimately, I have to admit that my opinion is probably negatively influenced by being upset that those I went with chose this over 13 Assassins. But that’s irrelevant, because I’ll just go see what I really want all by my lonesome, just as soon as I get the chance.
Go back and watch the ending of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Oh, that’s really asking too much.
Ultimately, I have to admit that my opinion is probably negatively influenced by being upset that those I went with chose this over 13 Assassins.
Look at it this way, they could have chosen The Hangover Part II.
Oh, that’s really asking too much.
Ken, I most certainly would not ask that of you in particular. I know better. Perhaps Jeremy. Besides, I was really speaking more figurative than literal.
Look at it this way, they could have chosen The Hangover Part II.
Yeah, speaking of nothing more than just a lazy fresh coat of paint, I’ve read that’s pretty much all that the sequel is. Not to be mean, but I imagine that the majority of the Hangover 2 type of audience really doesn’t care if they’re watching the same film again. (Ok, maybe that’s a little mean.)
Yeah, speaking of nothing more than just a lazy fresh coat of paint
And a monkey. Never overlook simian value.
Pitiful – If you equate hours in uncomfortable theatre seats and cost of entrance fee – you probably got your money’s worth. Beyond that – it was a total waste of time and money – no brain power required. Disney always said, “Story was king!” In this case the story was tripe and predictable. It’s another movie for the dumbed-down-masses expectations – full of fail-safe titillation from a too-big-to-fail factory of formula entertainment with no goal other than to fleece sheeple.
Offhand, I’d guess you didn’t like it.
I haven’t seen any of the sequels, just the original. Since I mainly go to movies to be entertained (as opposed to receiving a message) I don’t mind if a movie is tripe as long as it isn’t boring. I may go see this for something to do on the Fourth. Ken I take it you found it to be entertaining since you gave it 4 stars. That’s a lot for a movie with little redeeming social or political value:)