James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
It was announced last week that Pirates of the Caribbean 5 and 6 would be shot back-to-back. Yes that’s right. Pirates of the Caribbean 5. And 6.
Before I begin my diatribe on this extremely disturbing news, I would like to emphasise that I love the first film; it’s fun, action-packed and funny, with an excellent leading performance from Johnny Depp, and it is complete. By that, I mean that there was very little room for a sequel, let alone the two sequels that we have already endured, and the fourth film that docks in cinemas in May. I thought this was bad enough, but the fact that there will be another two more sequels shows that Disney just doesn’t know when to abandon ship.
When film producers are interviewed, they always say that the reason they want to make sequels is because they “have a great story,” or they feel “the fans deserve to know what happens next.” The returning actors are even worse, saying nonsense like they want to “explore the character more deeply” and that “the character is so fun to play.” Really, the only reason that sequels are made is to milk so much money from the franchise that the producers are drowning in the milk. It’s now time to take a look back at Disney’s previous efforts at Pirates sequels…
Dead Man’s Chest, the second film shot from the franchise’s cannon, was one of the most anticipated films of 2006. Everyone was disappointed. While it did not plumb the depths of its successor, it was a considerable reduction in quality from its predecessor. It wasn’t so much a film, more of a device to assist with teaching people how to tread water. It was incredibly waterlogged and, despite the numbing 2 1/2 hour running time, it felt like the ship had never left port, with virtually no plot developments being made.
I held out hope, however, for At World’s End, the sequel that followed just 11 months later in May 2007, as many trilogies suffer a dip in the middle. Unfortunately, I was being a little optimistic, as what resulted was The Worst Film I Have EVER Seen™ (and I’ve seen Superman IV: The Quest for Peace). I could write 1000 words alone on exactly why I hate this film to such an extent, but in the interests of my blood pressure, I will only give a brief overview. It was unbelievably long, the plot was contrived and confusing, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were wet and wooden respectively, while Johnny Depp was drunk with the amount of money he was making.
It was always publicised that this would be the final entry in the trilogy but, this being Hollywood, who have a slightly different dictionary to everyone else, the ending was left open and, hence, the upcoming On Stranger Tides was spawned.
The fact that Disney plan to return to back-to-back filming before the fourth film is even released shows that they expect to get a lot of money from this venture. Perhaps they have spent the last four years debating over the problems that the previous sequels suffered from, and film number 4 will be the blockbuster of 2011. But, seeing as there is only one problem with them (the fact that they exist), this is unlikely.
Therefore, it is up to you to boycott these films. They must flop. If not, Disney will keep this ship sailing even if all that remains is a splinter from the deck of The Black Pearl.
The first teaser trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was released yesterday on Yahoo!
"Dead Man’s Chest, the second film shot from the franchise’s cannon" - what an incredibly complete sentence-spanning pun; that's fantastic! Double-barrelled, even.
A movie series based on a theme park ride was always going to be a cashcow waiting to be flogged. When you think about it, the strangest thing is that original film was so good. At World's End was the only time I ever fell asleep in the cinema, despite the blasting music.
I really don't see what people's problem is with the second two Pirates films. Obviously they weren't AS good, but provided one watches them on their own terms - that is, fun, a bit silly, and actively disregarding realism - they're very enjoyable. Rollicking, even. It's worth reading a synopsis of the third film before watching, but once you've done that, there's nowt wrong with it.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report