Pirates of the Caribbean Series Retrospective (2003-2011)

Argh, me mateys! It’s time for another retrospective on a classic franchise that sees new life this year with an upcoming installment. And today’s franchise is a classic of this current era of franchises; one about the swashbuckling scallywags and their adventures on the high seas! “Yo-ho, Yo-ho, a Pirate’s Life for Me!” Heh, okay, I won’t be talking like a pirate throughout this entire post. But today, we are talking about the Pirates of the Caribbean films, one of the biggest film franchises in recent years… and an unexpected one at that. Because, really, the idea of turning a theme park ride into a film may seem like a crazy one depending on who you ask. That was clearly the case in 2003, when Disney decided to do a live-action adaptation of Pirates of the Caribbean, inspired by the company’s iconic theme park ride of the same name. The original Pirates of the Caribbean ride first opened in March 1967 at Disneyland in California and was the last attraction that Walt Disney himself primarily supervised before his death in December 1966. Obviously, it was a big hit with guests and the ride has since been established at multiple Disney parks around the world, arguably becoming Disney’s most iconic ‘dark ride’. Still, it seemed like a stretch when the first Pirates film was released in the summer of 2003 given the arguably absurd nature of what it was; a ‘theme-park ride’ based film. However, to the surprise of many, it was a smash hit with both critics and audiences, resulting in a few more sequels that were released over the next few years. And while the sequels did not fare as well in terms of critical and audience reception, they still proved to be monster hits for Disney at the box-office, even when considering that some of them ended up being some of the most expensive films ever made.

And this year, the series returns to the big screen for the first time since 2011 with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Supposedly, it’s the final installment of the franchise, if based only on the tagline ‘The Final Adventure’ seen in the film’s primary trailer. However, recent comments from co-director Joachim Rønning suggest that isn’t the case. After all, I’m sure that we all thought that At World’s End was the final film… and then On Stranger Tides seemed like the last one. And yet, here we are now with the fifth installment; who knows where it’ll go from here? Whatever happens, though, I am looking forward to this new installment of the franchise. I’ll admit that I generally like each of the four previous films. Granted, the sequels do have their flaws, but they also have great moments in them that ultimately make them worthwhile in the end. I may not have seen any of the original 3 films in theaters (I almost did see the first film back in 2003 during a double feature at the Rustic Drive-In along with Finding Nemo, but my family decided to leave a few minutes in because some of us were getting tired) but I do still fondly remember all the hype surrounding their releases. For one thing, I remember going on a Disney cruise right around the time when Dead Men’s Chest came out in 2006. Not only did they have the film playing in the ship’s theater (again, though, I didn’t see it then), but they also had the actual Flying Dutchman ship used in the film anchored at Disney’s private island, Castaway Cay. Sure, the hype for this franchise isn’t what it used to be but it does go to show how big the original trilogy really was. And so, in honor of the new film’s release, it’s time to embark on the seven seas alongside the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow as we look at the previous four installments of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Savvy?

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (2003)

We start things off, of course, with the original Pirates film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, released in 2003. As noted in the intro, there was some uncertainty surrounding this film given its status as a film that was based off one of Disney’s most iconic attractions. To put this entire situation into perspective, this was released one year after the infamous adaptation of The Country Bears, which was both a critical and commercial disaster. 2003 also saw the release of another poorly-received ‘Disney theme park’ adaptation, The Haunted Mansion. But, to the surprise of many, Pirates of the Caribbean (which, technically, was released before Haunted Mansion) proved to be one of the biggest critical and commercial hits of the summer and rightfully so as it’s a highly entertaining pirate adventure. Sure, perhaps it’s a tad bit overlong, with a runtime of over two and a half hours. And sure, maybe some of the CG effects, namely whenever the villainous pirates reveal their skeletal forms, have become rather dated compared to the effects of its sequels. Still, through it all, there’s never a dull moment in this film and, as would become common with each film in the series, the film has excellent action set-pieces, especially the sword-fighting sequences. Johnny Depp debuted one of the most famous protagonists in recent years in this film as the rogue and eccentric pirate, Jack Sparrow, and does a fantastic job in the role, so much so that he even earned an Oscar nomination for it. The rest of the cast is solid too; Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are both excellent as the series’ main romantic leads, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, and Geoffrey Rush is enjoyably over-the-top as main villain Hector Barbossa. Thus, The Curse of the Black Pearl still holds up as a fun and adventurous film that truly surprised us all upon release.

Rating: 5/5!

“You are without a doubt the worst pirate that I’ve ever seen!” – Commodore Norrington

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST (2006)

The main thing to note about this franchise is that only the first Pirates film was a commercial AND critical success. While each of the sequels were successful commercially, they didn’t fare as well with critics compared to the original. That all started with 2006’s Dead Man Chest, once again directed by Gore Verbinski and produced back-to-back with the third film. And, to be perfectly blunt… this film gets too much of a bad rep. Sure, there are some flaws here and there. You could say that this is where one of the main issues that critics have had with the series starts to emerge; that the plots begin to get overly complicated with too many characters to follow. Plus, there are quite a few ridiculous moments throughout the film, like during the finale when ‘literally’ everyone begins to fight each other over control of the titular ‘Dead Man’s Chest’, which contains the heart of main villain Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) that can be used to control him. But, again, never a dull moment thanks to excellently choreographed action sequences, including an epic finale in which the crew of the Black Pearl battles Davy Jones’ ‘terrible beastie’, the Kraken. The cast is still great as before; the returning cast members slip back into their respective roles with ease and there are some memorable new characters as well, including Stellan Skarsgård as Will’s long-lost father ‘Bootstrap’ Bill and, as mentioned earlier, Bill Nighy as the series’ absolute best villain, the creepy tentacled pirate that is Davy Jones. Heck, the film also deserves some credit for not entirely ending on a ‘happy’ note a la Empire Strikes Back, while also culminating with an awesome cameo that further sets up the sequel. So, in short, no I don’t think that this is better than the first film. Still, I’d argue that it ain’t too far off. Thus, it’s easy to see why this became the first film in the series, and the third film EVER, to gross over a billion at the worldwide box-office. Clearly, it was one of the biggest films of its time.

   

Rating: 4.5/5

“What about Jack? I’m not leaving without him!” (*sees Jack pursued by the cannibals*) “Time to go!” – Will Turner (though I must say, it’s more hilarious in the trailer, where he’s just like “Never mind, let’s go!”)

Also…

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END (2007)

When it comes to the argument that these films are overstuffed and overly-complicated, At World’s End is most likely the primary film in the series that receives the most flak for this. It’s the longest film in the series with a runtime of nearly three hours and was also the most expensive film ever made at the time, becoming the first film ever to have a budget of at least $300 million. And, admittedly, in some cases the critics are right. It IS a bit overlong and there are some instances where the plot gets overly complicated, namely during the second act where characters begin to repeatedly double-cross one another in scenes that admittedly make the film start to drag. However, once again, when this film does something great, it’s fantastic. For a film that was the most expensive film ever made at the time, it does live up to its status as a $300 million film. This is easily the biggest film in the entire series in terms of its scale, set design, visuals, and action sequences and it’s all fantastic from a technical perspective. Case in point, if you can make it through the hefty runtime, the film ends with what is easily the series’ best finale to date, as our heroes battle Davy Jones and his crew in the middle of a raging maelstrom, complete with an impromptu wedding between Will and Elizabeth ministered by Barbossa. Thus, like Dead Men’s Chest, I think At World’s End also gets too much of a bad reputation. I mean, to be fair, if I had to rank these films, admittedly this one would probably rank last amongst the original trilogy. It is somewhat of a chore to sit through at parts with a runtime that damn near rivals the Lord of the Rings films. However, I’d argue that it’s worth it for one of the best finales of any film from this past decade, making this a solid conclusion to the original trilogy of Pirates films.

Rating: 4.5/5

“Mr. Gibbs, you may throw my hat if you like!” (*Gibbs throws Jack’s hat*) “Now go and get it!” – Jack Sparrow

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011)

While it seemed like At World’s End marked the end of the series, it instead returned four years later with a new installment, On Stranger Tides, inspired by a 1987 book of the same name by author Tim Powers that also influenced the popular Monkey Island series. This time around, directorial duties went to Rob Marshall, best known for directing musicals like Chicago and Into the Woods. And that experience in theater does help, in a way, when it comes to choreographing the action sequences. Like its previous installments, this film’s biggest strength is through its technical merits; cinematography, set design, visuals, etc. Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are great, as always, and Penelope Cruz is a welcome addition to the franchise as Jack’s old flame Angelica. Ian McShane is also great in the role of the film’s imposing villain, the infamous Blackbeard. However, the film does run into a problem in terms of its overall scale, at least when compared to previous installments. After the large-scale efforts in At World’s End, this film is decidedly scaled down by comparison. This is, ultimately, both a good and bad thing. On one hand, it means that the film isn’t trying to do as much in terms of story and plot. But, at the same time, it’s still a vastly smaller scaled entry in the series, complete with a finale that’s more on par with the first film’s finale in terms of its overall scale. It truly makes you wonder how this film ended up surpassing its predecessor as the most expensive film ever made. You think At World’s End’s $300 million budget was crazy? Apparently, this film’s budget was over $400 million. And, truth be told, this doesn’t feel like that kind of film. It feels more like a $140 million film which, for the record… was the budget for the first film. Still, at the end of the day, On Stranger Tides is another enjoyable, albeit flawed, entry in this iconic series.

Rating: 4/5

“Did everyone see that? Because I will not be doing it again!” – Jack Sparrow (after jumping from a tall tower before it explodes)

And those are my thoughts on the Pirates of the Caribbean films. I recognize that I might be in the minority when it comes to those who do like these films (along with my pal Alex Corey; be sure to check out his reviews of these films over on his site), but I’d argue that these are still entertaining films despite some of their biggest flaws. Still, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal thoughts on these films. And you can expect a review of Dead Men Tell No Tales sometime this week. Until then, remember…

“This is the day you will always remember as the day you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow!”

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) review

This may be a controversial statement in the minds of some people given the general reaction to this series, but I’ve been a fairly big fan of the ‘Hobbit’ movies. Do I think they’re as good as director Peter Jackson’s previous Middle-Earth trilogy, ‘The Lord of the Rings’? No, not really, but I do think that they’re better than what many people have put them out to be. Of course, the controversy surrounding this adaptation of the classic story of the same name from author J.R.R. Tolkien has mostly stemmed from the decision to split the book into three separate films which many felt was very unnecessary given that the book is only about 300 pages long whereas the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy was based on three separate 300 page books. And sure, some of the problems that would’ve clearly emerged from padding the story out to three films have been present in the previous two films, such as a rather slow pace to start out the story in ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and sometimes feeling rather stuffed as far as characters and plotlines are concerned like in ‘The Desolation of Smaug’. Still, I do feel that these films have maintained the same great atmosphere and sense of adventure that ‘Lord of the Rings’ had, so much so that I can generally ignore a lot of the ‘downfalls’ of the previous two films. But now, the story of ‘The Hobbit’ finally comes to a close on film with ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ and after seeing this final film, I can safely say that it is without a doubt the best film in the entire trilogy.

At the end of ‘The Desolation of Smaug’, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and his company of Dwarves, with the help of hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), had finally reached their homeland of Erebor within the Lonely Mountain, which had been stolen from them years earlier by the vicious dragon Smaug (portrayed through motion-capture by Benedict Cumberbatch). The group tries to kill Smaug by burying him alive in molten gold but that plan ends up failing and Smaug escapes from the mountain in order to enact his revenge on the people of the nearby Lake-town for assisting the Dwarves in their quest while Bilbo and the Dwarves can only watch from afar. As ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ begins, Smaug begins his attack on Lake-town and while he is ultimately defeated by bowman Bard (Luke Evans, and for the record don’t worry folks this is not a spoiler as it’s literally the opening sequence of the film), who manages to hit him with a powerful black arrow in the one weak spot in his armor, most of the town is effectively destroyed, leaving the surviving residents of Lake-town homeless.

After the surviving residents of the town elect him as their new leader, Bard travels to the Lonely Mountain to talk with Thorin about him and his company holding up their part of the deal that he had made with the people of Lake-town before they had left for the mountain; that they would give them a part of the Mountain’s vast collection of treasure, which would be really helpful for Bard’s group at the moment given the situation that they’re currently in. But Thorin, who has begun to fall to the same ‘sickness of greed’ that had affected his grandfather in the years before Smaug’s initial attack on the Lonely Mountain as he desperately searches for his family’s heir-loom, the Arkenstone (which unbeknownst to him has already been found by Bilbo, who has been hiding it from him due to his change in attitude), refuses to give up any of the gold. As a result, Bard forges an alliance with the Wood-Elves of Mirkwood, led by their king Thranduil (Lee Pace), who is also looking for a part of the Dwarves’ treasure, as they plan an assault on the Lonely Mountain while Thorin’s group prepares for this impending attack. But little do they all know that some other armies are on their way to the Lonely Mountain to seek control of it for their master, who of course was revealed at the end of ‘Desolation’ to be the Dark Lord himself, Sauron (also portrayed by Cumberbatch through motion-capture).

As many of you may have guessed from the film’s title, this is clearly the entry in the ‘Hobbit’ film series where the most action in the story occurs, which is perfectly summed up by the fact that the titular ‘Battle of the Five Armies’ is a 45-minute long sequence and boy is it quite a sequence (and no, I don’t care if this was just one chapter in the book… I’ll get into the whole ‘three films’ thing later on). As far as scale and scope is concerned this is easily the biggest out of all of Jackson’s Middle-Earth films and it truly delivers on the spectacle with some of the best action sequences of the entire series (even when counting what we saw in ‘Lord of the Rings’). But at the same time, the film still holds your attention from beginning to end thanks to solid pacing, meaning the film never really drags at any point. As the final film in this epic story, you can really see how everything has been building up to what happens in this film and in some cases how this trilogy will ultimately lead into ‘Lord of the Rings’. Having only seen those films once, I can’t really say how effectively ‘Battle of the Five Armies’ leads into the previous trilogy as a whole but from the perspective of a general newcomer to the world of Middle-Earth as it has been portrayed in film, to me it seems that it did do a pretty good job in paving the way to its successor trilogy with key references to ‘Lord of the Rings’ showing how things became the way they were. This is a prequel, after all.

But amidst all of the action, Jackson still manages to find enough time for character development, particularly with Thorin and Bilbo. This film is easily Thorin’s story as we see his descent into madness as he obsesses over finding the Arkenstone, succumbing to the same sickness of the mind that his grandfather was stricken with as we saw from the prologue of ‘An Unexpected Journey’. It’s a fascinating look into the psyche of this character who’ve we been with since the beginning of the trilogy and Richard Armitage is easily the biggest standout of this entry in the trilogy. But of course, as it has always been since the first ‘Lord of the Rings’ film all the way back in 2001, the cast is pitch-perfect from top to bottom. Martin Freeman provides a great amount of wit, charm, and also an everyman-like persona in the role of Bilbo, Ian McKellen is his usual badass self in the role of the equally badass wizard Gandalf the Grey, and while only a few of the members of the company of Dwarves, not counting Thorin (e.g. Fili, Kili, Dwalin, and Balin), get any major material to work with, they have a great sense of camaraderie amongst them. That’s been the case since the first film so in the scene where Thorin asks them if they will follow him ‘one last time’, you too are with them because you really felt that you were along for the ride with them. There may be a few characters from ‘Lord of the Rings’ featured here that may not have been in the original book, like Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom), but they are a welcome addition here, helping these films feel even more like a crucial part of Jackson’s Middle-Earth universe.

In 2001, Peter Jackson, who at that point was mostly known for splatter films and horror comedies, began a journey into the fictional land of Middle-Earth with ‘The Lord of the Rings’, a trilogy of films that became some of the most highly regarded films of the last few years. A decade later, he returned to Middle-Earth for another trilogy, this time based on the prequel to ‘Lord of the Rings’, ‘The Hobbit’. Some may argue that this second trip to Middle-Earth wasn’t as good as the first one due to the fact that they expanded a rather small book into three big films and in some cases that may be true. But thanks to great direction, a great cast, great visuals, and overall a great atmosphere, I do feel that the same magic that ‘Lord of the Rings’ had is once again present in ‘The Hobbit’, once again showing why Jackson was the perfect man to helm all of these Middle-Earth movies. That is again shown in the final ‘Hobbit’ film, ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’, which is easily the best film in the entire trilogy. Everything has been building up to this finale and it truly delivers in terms of the payoff and the overall spectacle as it is arguably the biggest Middle-Earth movie to date. At this point, it seems like this is the last film for Jackson and his crew in the world of Middle-Earth. Some may feel that this is a good thing given the more mixed reactions to ‘The Hobbit’ compared to ‘Lord of the Rings’, but me personally I’d like to say this to Mr. Jackson; thank you, thank you, thank you for all of the work that you’ve put into your six Middle-Earth movies. It was truly a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experience that we may never experience again.

Rating: 5/5!

REVIEW EPILOGUE

(Because hey, if Peter Jackson can have multiple endings in ‘Return of the King’, I can have an extra ending to my review of the final ‘Hobbit’ film).

Now before I go, I’m just going to give my final thoughts on the one crucial point of debate in regards to this series ever since the fateful decision to split the story into three films; at the end of the day, was it a good idea? For some people, it wasn’t and I’ll admit that when it was first announced, I too was rather hesitant about it. But now, after seeing all three ‘Hobbit’ movies, I am now actually in full support of this decision, for a few reasons. The big reason why many felt that doing a trilogy of films was a bad idea was that ‘The Hobbit’ is only a 300-page book. However, ‘The Hobbit’ is not as simple a story as some may claim it to be. A lot of things do happen in the story; the characters are introduced, they go off on their journey, they encounter various obstacles along the way, Bilbo acquires ‘the Ring’, they reach Erebor, they face off with Smaug, Smaug escapes, attacks Lake-town, and is killed by Bard, and then multiple armies duke it out over control of the Lonely Mountain before Bilbo finally returns home to the Shire. And that isn’t even all of what happens in this story. Simply put, it can’t really be done in just one film. I know that some people feel that this should’ve been the case with these films but you know what would happen if we just had one ‘Hobbit’ film? Then we’d all be here complaining about how that one film rushed through the entire story. Sure, maybe it could’ve been done in just two movies (that was the original plan, after all) but as for me I’m glad that they didn’t just cram the ‘Battle of Five Armies’ into the second film like I heard some reports claim that it was going to be.

And besides, if anyone was worried about this story being padded out into three three-hour long movies like the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies were, that wasn’t the case at all. Because while the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies got longer with each new film, it was the other way around with ‘The Hobbit’ as the films continued to get shorter and shorter, with ‘Battle of the Five Armies’ being the shortest Middle-Earth movie of them all at only 144 minutes. But if the runtime wasn’t the issue for people, it was probably the fact that these movies were rather overloaded with characters and admittedly that is fairly true. There are a lot of characters in this story and while we are primarily following Bilbo and a company of 13 dwarves, only a few of them (not counting Thorin because he’s clearly the most important out of all of them) get any major bits of character development. But you know something? From what I hear, that was a problem in the book as well. In fact, in some cases the book is even more problematic in how it handles its characters, some of whom are barely in it, like Bard the Bowman. From what I hear, in the book he doesn’t appear until his big moment when he kills Smaug, so kudos to the filmmakers for actually giving him a much more substantial role in the film. And on that note I do like the addition of Tauriel in the movies, even if most of her role in the story revolves around her romance with Kili, mainly because it does add some much needed diversity to a pre-dominantly male cast (something that was the case in both ‘Middle-Earth’ trilogies).

In short, I feel that Peter Jackson and his crew were actually aware of the tricky situation they were in when adapting ‘The Hobbit’ to film. I think they knew that the book had some issues with pacing and character development so, as controversial as it may be for some people, I am in full support of the decision to split it up into three separate films. Because while ‘The Hobbit’ is technically a children’s book, it’s not as simple as people think it is. A lot of things do happen in the story so while many people might complain about these movies being over-long (which isn’t actually that much of a problem because they’ve been getting shorter with every film), I’d much rather spend nine hours in Middle-Earth getting to know these characters than just spending about three hours there not really getting to know them at all because the film would be going at an incredibly fast pace. And sure, not all of the characters get that much to do in these films, like most of the company of Dwarves, but while I haven’t read ‘The Hobbit’, from what I can tell the same problem occurs in the book as well and if anything, I think that Jackson should be applauded for expanding on certain characters’ roles in the story, like Bard the Bowman and Thranduil, and I also don’t mind the additions of Tauriel and other characters from ‘Lord of the Rings’ because in the case of the former, these films gain a solid female character in what is a pre-dominantly male cast and in the case of the latter, the appearances of characters like Legolas, Galadriel, and Saruman help this movie feel even more connected to the ‘Lord of the Rings’ films. I feel that Jackson actually did a really solid job at adapting a story that, like it or not, isn’t exactly perfect.