"At World's End"

When “Pirates of the Caribbean” was first announced as the next “ride-turned-movie” from Walt Disney Pictures, I was skeptical. I mean, this was the studio responsible for the “Country Bears Movie” and “The Haunted Mansion.” Could another film based on a thrill ride be any different from those failed attempts? To understand what was going on in the minds of the directors of Disney at the time, we must understand the studio politics at the time. Michael Eisner was the CEO and President of the Walt Disney Corporation, and he had fallen into that most dangerous of territory-the financial “suit” who fancied himself a creative executive. Eisner obviously forgot that even Walt needed Roy Disney to run the business side of the Disney empire! Slowly over the years, he had rid himself of many of the creative geniuses who at, at one time or another, worked for Disney (Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jon Lasseter, and Tim Burton included). He had refused to appoint a successor to Frank Wells (who had tragically and suddenly died in a helicopter accident the winter before the release of “The Lion King”) until giving the position to the woefully underqualified and unprepared Michael Ovitz. Near the end of his tenure at Disney, Eisner was responsible for 1) the firing of the creative executives responsible for “Lost,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Desperate Housewives,” 2) ABC passing on “Survivor” and “The Apprentice” in favor of airing “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” 4 times a week, 3) selling off the rights for “The Sixth Sense” in an effort to merely recoup the cost of production (thereby costing Disney hundreds of millions of dollars), and 4) favoring pet projects at the expense of the high concept projects that he could just not understand. This last problem was nothing less than amazing, as Eisner, Katzenberg, and Barry Diller had all been a part of the Paramount brain trust from the 1980s that introduced the concept of high concept, with films such as “Flashdance,” “Top Gun,” and “Beverly Hills Cop.” One of Eisner’s goto producing companies at that time was Simpson-Bruckheimer (which became Bruckheimer Pictures after the untimely overdose-death of Don Simpson in the mid ‘90s).

When “Pirates” went into production, Eisner envisioned a low budget pirate caper, but Jerry Bruckheimer recognized that this could be something much more. Armed with a screenplay by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, Bruckheimer proceeded to assemble his team of artisans, recruiting Gore Verbinski (director of “The Ring” and “The Mexican”), Hans Zimmer, and a cast consisting of newcomers (Kiera Knightley and Orlando Bloom-fresh off the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy) and, most importantly, Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Filming commenced, and the suits at Disney were up in arms about the elevating costs, the use of ILM as the special effects house, and. most notably, Depp’s characterization of Captain Jack. If Eisner had had his way, Depp would not have been Captain Jack and we would have been deprived of one of the great performances of the past decade. Luckily, Bruckheimer’s clout won the day. Depp got to keep his characterization (and his gold teeth and eyeliner) intact, and Verbinski was allowed to craft a swashbuckling fantasy action film where the story was central and not in service to the special effects. One must remember that the pirate film genre has been marked more by failures than by successes (“The Pirate Movie,” “The Island” (the Peter Benchley version from the 80s), and most notably, “Cutthroat Island”). Few were willing to give this film a chance, but the trailers played up the supernatural aspects of the story and brought the people to the theaters. Depp’s performance and the story kept the people in the theater once they were there. Word of mouth from the film spread, and Disney (which had already released Pixar’s “Finding Nemo” that summer), easily won 2003's summer box office crown with the one-two punch of “Pirates” and “Nemo.” Naturally, talk of a sequel started soon after.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first film, but the second film left me a little unsatisfied. The story was extremely confusing, and the main action sequence in “Dead Man’s Chest” was "the action scene that would never end." In preparing to write this entry, I revisited the first 2 films thanks to the wonders of Disney Blu-ray (the picture is SO clear…but I digress…). The first film was just as enjoyable as I remembered, and the second film (though less confusing than I remembered) still had that long and drawn out action sequence in it (where they are fighting on the rolling wheel). The main weakness of the second film (I thought at the time) was the absence of significant screen time for Depp’s Captain Jack. He was the star of the first film, and I did not really care for the secondary stories concerning Will Turner, Elizabeth, and Bootstrap Bill. Although I found the character of Davy Jones intriguing (due in no small part to the abilities of Bill Nighy, who I have admired since his role as Victor in the “Underworld” films) and I loved the development of Jack Davenport’s character Norrington, I felt that something was missing from the second film. I thought that it was a greater focus on Captain Jack. I was wrong. The thing that was missing from the second film returned in full force to the third film.

Let me segue at this point to speak about my movie going habits. For the most part, I enjoy seeing films by myself. I can usually control the time and place of the showing, and I never have to worry about coordinating schedules or any other such nonsense. Of course, I find that this has changed over the past few weeks. I saw “Spider-Man” with my friend Jeff, and I saw “Shrek the Third” with a large group of people from DePaul. Prior to these experiences, I had always thought that the movie going experience was best enjoyed by myself, but I was wrong. It is fun to go to movies with others; though I will still see the occasional films by myself (especially the independent ones), I think that having a movie going buddy will be fun. This summer, it looks like my friend and fellow blogger Daisy Duke (from www.legallyblondeambition.blogspot.com) will be my movie going buddy (if for no other reason than she does not seem to mind going to movies early on a Saturday!). I appreciate the fact that she can discuss films in detail; that is what makes it so fun.

So Daisy and I went to see “At World’s End” on Saturday. The theater was crowded but not packed, and it turned out to be a good call to see the film on Saturday, as it was a rainy day in Chicago. After sitting through NUMEROUS trailers, the film started. I was immediately struck with how somber and serious (and adult) this entry in the series was to be. You will understand when you see it; I felt a chill when the child on the gallows started to sing. It perfectly set the mood for the film, and I was immediately drawn into the story. So now comes the part where I discuss what was good and what was bad.

What was bad? Well…there were quite a few plot points left dangling. These include, but are not limited to, the Calypso-Davy Jones substory, the reason for the fate of the Kraken (when in the first film Beckett seemed so set on controlling Jones due to his control over the Kraken), the reason for Beckett’s “actions” at the end of the film, and Beckett’s reasons for wanting Norrington and a detachment of troops on board the Flying Dutchman with the heart of Davy Jones (I mean, would he not feel safer if the heart was in HIS possession?). I also thought (until the VERY end of the credits) that the Will/Elizabeth love story was completely superfluous. The resolution of the fate of Will and Elizabeth, however, assuaged my concerns regarding this. Most of my gripes (and the gripes of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes who have blasted this film with a rating in the 40s) could be addressed through paying careful attention at the groundwork that was laid in the second film or the plot points introduced in the first film. I do not believe, however, that the shortcomings of the film lend themselves to the critical drubbing that we have seen thus far. I only wish that the critics had watched the first 2 films just prior to watching the third. It does make a difference.

What worked in this film? First of all, there was more of a focus on Captain Jack. In the first film, he supposedly went mad when Barbossa and the crew of the Black Pearl left him to die on a deserted island, but in truth he had not gone mad because he only spent 3 days there. Here, however, we learn that Captain Jack has, indeed, gone mad from his time in Davy Jones’ Locker (read the “afterlife”). Depp once again chews up the scenery at every opportunity, and I was glad to see it. After all, I really missed Captain Jack being the focus in the second film. Secondly, the third film restored that mystery factor that had been missing in the second film. I was wrong: the mystery factor was not the lack of focus on Captain Jack alone; in actuality, the missing factor in the second film was Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa. Barbossa’s return was the best thing of all. I realized that part of the charm in the first film was the repartee between Barbossa and Captain Jack, and here the repartee is back in full force. Geoffrey Rush was amazing, and I do not think that he has merited the attention that he deserves. Thirdly, I admire the fact that the filmmakers (Verbinski and the writers together) did not shirk away from the harsh choices concerning the fates of some of the characters. I will not give these away, but once again, I was impressed with the choices that were made, particularly with regard to the resolution of the Elizabeth/Will storyline. There were no needless deaths of lead characters (a la “The Matrix Revolutions”), and I loved the final coda at the end of the credits. I was surprised that few people stayed in the theater until the end considering that both of the previous “Pirates” films had an extra bit at the end. This coda, however, unlike those in the previous films, ties in directly to the fate of Will and Elizabeth. Do not leave the theater until AFTER the credits have rolled. You will not be disappointed. I also LOVED the key action set piece of the film. There is so much happening in the face-off between the Flying Dutchman and the Black Pearl, but Verbinski does a masterful job of shifting among the various events to the extent that at no time was I confused as to what was going on. This is skill.

What is the final verdict? This is a solid effort and a worthy finale to the “Pirates” films even if the filmmakers chose not to make another one (although there are many more tales that can be told). How does it measure up overall? I must agree with my friend Aaron and give it a “B.” A “B” is good for a summer film considering that I have enjoyed so few from the past few years. It means that the film is “good but not great.” Would I see it again? Absolutely. What would I change? If the film (already long at 2.5+ hours) had an extra 15 minutes, it could have answered many of the dangling questions and been a more complete film. Who knows? Maybe those bits of film exist somewhere. All I can say is that I am glad that Bob Iger is now in charge of Disney. He greenlit a $300 million dollar film, and I enjoyed it as did Daisy.

What’s the next film up for review? “Ocean’s 13.” Stay tuned! By the way. if you are interested in finding out more about the Eisner years, I highly recommend the book "Disney War," written by James Stewart.