Skip to main content

Dead Men Tell No Better Tales


          I’ve always had a soft spot for the Pirates of the Caribbean films. The Curse of the Black Pearl was a brilliantly clever, funny, and exciting adventure that’s easily the best swashbuckler movie since the days of Errol Flynn. The second and third films were typically bad sequels, but still enjoyable guilty pleasures. And the fourth was okay, but not very engaging or memorable. However with each film in this series, you’re guaranteed some creativity in the world, characters, action, and visuals, that are worth something, even if the plots are convoluted and drawn out. Dead Men Tell No Tales is coming six years after On Stranger Tides, and is the first in the series not to be written by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio. Does this signal a return to form for this series or spell its ultimate doom?
          The cursed ghost of a Spanish naval captain Salazar (Javier Bardem) has been freed from captivity in the Devil’s Triangle along with his crew, and seeks revenge on Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), who as a young man tricked him into the doom of his crew. Jack meanwhile, after a botched bank robbery, is found by Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites), the son of his former friend Will (Orlando Bloom) now the cursed Captain of the Flying Dutchman. The two team up with an astronomer Carina (Kaya Scodelario) who can guide them by the stars to the legendary Trident of Poseidon, which can both break Salazar’s curse and that of Henry’s father. Also brought into the conflict is the rich pirate lord Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), whom Salazar ropes into helping him.
          If the story sounds convoluted, it is, but much less so than the last few films in this franchise. This movie is the shortest in the series, and clearly has more of a direction, helmed by Norwegian filmmakers Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. It’s also a lot closer to Curse of the Black Pearl, still the undisputed champion of this franchise, in regards to the cursed-pirate-crew-trying-to-be-cured plot, and the personalities of the two new characters. This movie also explores a little more the backstory of Jack Sparrow as we see him as a young man besting Salazar. 
          With these improvements though there’s one major element that makes this movie fall apart, and that’s Jack Sparrow. He is awful! While the character has always been silly and eccentric, there is a suaveness to him that made him so endearing and entertaining in that first film. In this movie, despite being billed as the main character, he’s really just the comic relief. His stakes in this plot are relatively low, he’s just along for the ride. Not once does he appear genuinely invested in anything and almost all of his scenes are built around jokes. And for the most part, they’re very bad jokes too. Humour that seems really simple and juvenile, like misunderstanding what a Horologist is purely for an innuendo. He’s still a large part of the movie, but the fact he’s not being taken remotely seriously is irritating and disrespectful to a character who even in the worst of these films has had some dignity. I don’t entirely blame Johnny Depp for this, I think it does lie in the absence of Elliott and Rossio’s writing, but he certainly doesn’t do the part any favours with his typical mugging and self-parody. Bardem plays his part decently, but apart from Salazar’s history with Jack which isn’t nearly explored enough, he makes for a dull villain. Thwaites and Scodelario are fine but their romantic chemistry is lacking and doesn’t feel as believable as their predecessors’. Henry Turner is fairly one-note but Carina’s actually quite fascinating. There’s an interesting reveal about her, and her rational, scientific mind is refreshing. Kevin McNally is back and as always is pretty good. David Wenham I’m glad to see in this, and Stephen Graham. Orlando Bloom is milking his early career for relevance as of late, but he’s not bad. The only great performance in the movie though is Geoffrey Rush. Rush and his character have been a highlight of all these films; a wickedly fun and perfectly over-the-top pirate villain turned anti-hero, and in this movie he’s given a great character arc that Rush plays terrifically, easily being the best part of the story.
          There are a few annoying continuity errors in this movie; particularly the passage of around twenty years between this film and At World’s End ten years ago. No one’s seemed to age nearly that much, and the catalyst for Henry’s journey being Will’s condition, seems to contradict the ending of that film. Not to mention all the films have plot cues that suggest they take place in relatively short proximity to one another. There were also one or two points left open from On Stranger Tides that are never addressed.
          But on the positive side, the visuals in this movie are fairly good as the Pirates films have been generally known for. The ghosts (and even the stupid ghost sharks) look intimidating, the actions scenes are well-choreographed and a few, particularly in the first great set-piece, are very creative -like Jack being trapped in a rotating guillotine. The de-ageing effect is present in the flashback scene and unlike in Guardians 2 it’s really good, possibly due to the fact Johnny Depp isn’t required to talk much. The atmosphere of the history and the open-seas adventure is still there, making the film’s ultimate quality all the more disappointing.
          I love Barbossa and his story, I love the promise in the Carina character, and I love a bunch of the little things, but Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is not the return to form it was trying to be. In fact even if the last few films haven’t been that good, I feel this entry really did lose something with Elliott and Rossio. A lot of good ideas not fully realized, noticeable continuity errors, and poor comedy would have been a lot more tolerable if the franchise lead character was on his game. But the poor handling of Jack really does sink this ship, to the point I’m hoping for a sequel, if only to send-off his character and this franchise on a stronger note.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...