Political Penguin

Just got back from watching Pirates of the Caribbean 3 so I thought I’d do a little review as I don’t go to the cinema much. Actually the last film I saw at the cinema was the Revenge of the Sith so you can tell how long it’s been. Anyway, a little review, I won’t of course reveal too much for those who haven’t seen it but if you don’t want to know anything I suggest not reading on.

I think the best preparation is to not go into the cinema expecting a rehash of the style of the first two films. This is a much darker affair than the second which was in my opinion darker than the first one. The opening scene of mass executions including a small boy really hits you that this isn’t the light-hearted swashbuckling fun that it’s predecessors were, although the second film did have some moments like the throat slashing of sailors on the Flying Dutchman it’s nothing compared to this.

Don’t expect the formulaic entrances like that of Jack Sparrow in the first and second. When he pops up in this one it’s decidedly more dodgy and slightly disturbing before you work out what the hell is going on. There’s also a lot more death and killing going on. Expect a fair few familiar faces from the first two films to be written off and ‘sort of’ one of the three main characters, ie. Sparrow, Elizabeth or William.

Is it a trilogy? Well, taken from the rules of a trilogy as outlined in Scream 3 then sort of. Everyone is fair game including the lead roles. There’s a lot of tying up of loose ends regarding stuff from the first two films. However the end effectively takes you back to the start of the first film with the open possibility of further adventure.

On the acting:

Johnny Depp: There’s a harder edge to the character which I think loses something of the charm of the first two films. Less the wobbling around like he’s constantly drunk, more focussed, personally I liked the drunk nutter myself than the talking to imaginary miniature/life size versions of himself in this film.

Kiera Knightley: Her character has been beefed up a fair bit and takes a more central role in the film than the last two. Personally I think she played far better than in the previous films and I’m no real fan of hers.

That geezer out of Lord of the Rings that my missus fancies: Whereas he was a more pivotal role in the second film he appears more like a supporting actor in this one. Not completely sidelined but definitely the weakest of the main three. Barbosa easily takes up a more important role than him in this film. He is however a lot more deceitful and not the naive young man he is in the first film.

I can’t remember any of the others names so I’ll just go by character or description of, apologies if there’s a bit of bad spelling.

Captain Barbosa: I think he was probably the best performer in this film. His character didn’t alter from the first, apart from not being an un-dead cursed thingy of course. You know what you’re getting with him which to some respects is reassuring because of the propensity of various people being killed off, a slightly erratic flow and a general mistrust of the intentions of any of the characters.

Davy Jones: Excellent acting and CGI of course but he comes across as a far more humbled and weaker character than in the second film. Of course that’s to be expected since the EIC have his heart and are controlling him but I liked him better in the second film.

Captain (now Admiral) Norrington: He’s not in much of the film for obvious reasons but I thought his character came across as the most genuine of all. A realisation of having made a mistake and making an attempt to rectify it.

Elizabeth’s father: Not in much of the film either, I think two/three scenes and only any real lines in the last scene he’s in. Personally I liked his character in the first two films. Sadly there’s not much of him here.

Geezer from the EIC: Well acted, does the role really well. Comes across as a real nasty piece of work, but hey, he is the main villain of the film. Not sure if it’s just me or his final scene has a hint of Al Pacino in Scarface about it. Less the machine guns, grenade launchers and constant use of the word ‘fuck’ of course, more the slow motion world being blown away around him. OK, it’s probably just me.

Other Geezer from the EIC (the one that popped up in the pirate village in the second film doing a bit of spying): He’s really quite evil but probably isn’t given enough of a part in the film to develop it. Shame that.

The new pirate guy from Singapore: Well acted and completely ruthless. This wasn’t what I expected in that the film would be about all the pirates getting together to fight the EIC, there’s so much double-dealing going on it’s hard to keep up with it in the first sitting.

Keith Richards: Yes, we know he does a cameo role as Sparrow’s father and does it well. Sadly he’s only in two scenes, well one and half really so there’s no development of the character which could have brought a bit more humour into the film.

The witch doctor voodoo type woman: Her role is also far more important than in the second film and reveals her part in the events that have taken place and are unfolding. Personally I though her acting was brilliant and she carried on the style of the character from the second film well.

There’s the variety of pirates from the last films, the guy with one eye, his mate, the drunk first mate who knows everything, the parrot man, the short geezer and they pretty much play out as in the first films. There’s also the two soldiers in there who are crackingly funny towards the end of the film with a slight rehash of their first conversation with Sparrow in the original film and how they turn out at the end of the film.

Finally there’s the monkey: Sad to say it but I thought the monkey stole the show. He/she gets all the great funny moments of the film and the cannon shot was brilliant. Good job he’s an un-dead monkey.

Overall a very good way to spend a few hours of your life. Criticisms? Well, I think there are too many characters, not to mention those from the first films but the additional ones here. It means that there’s not enough time for much character development whereas the main protagonists can get away with this on the basis of you knowing about them from the first films, the new characters seem to be there more for facets of the storyline or to add that bit of difference than anything else, that’s probably why they kill off so many of them.

As I’m a sad techie I always love to see how CGI is used in films. The CGI on the characters is top notch as with the first two films but whereas I’d heard the scenery settings were particularly good I looked out for them but in all fairness although they were very good, there wasn’t anything mindbogglingly stupendous about them.

Final thoughts. It’s got a 12A certificate. Wouldn’t have a problem allowing a child under that age to watch the first two films. This one I’m not so sure though. It’s got some far harsher scenes in it that the other two that I just don’t think are suitable for younger children.