Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Heeeeeeeeere's Johnny... again. I went into this movie with great anticipation. After all, the first in the series was pretty good. The second strayed off course, and left me wanting an iceberg. So, I thought, the third will provide redemption. That anticipation was poorly aimed.

The movie wasn't bad, per se, although it did last for quite some time and included numerous unnecessary scenes. I really wasn't too interested in the abstract, metaphysical musings regarding Davy Jones' Locker. But they were a visual triumph, even if they added nothing to the film. The moments of humor-- mostly slapstick-- were well-placed, although meant more for children. And there's the rub! I couldn't figure out whether the film was intended for young audiences (pre-teen) or adults. For instance, there was a great deal of violence, but I believe moral/ethical explanation is the responsibility of parents in governing their spawn. But the violence was really over-the-top in it's presentation. Nevertheless, such conundrums filled the screen.

I analogize the film to the telling of Shakespeare to toddlers. Imagine explaining Macbeth to someone who can barely understand or use the English language. How do you simplify a good story and develop characters with monosyllabic words? Now, for exercise, define "red".

As for the acting, I bump my rating up a bit for the inclusion of Keith Richards. That man is an icon by any person's standards. Depp modeled his character's behavior after the real-life Richards, and to add him in the film was a great choice-- my favorite part of the film. Depp is always good, but his character was just a static extension of the second film, a baffoon aided by circumstance a la Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Knightley was okay, but just okay. I didn't really care for her personna in this film. I don't know many people who enjoy overt arrogance in humans or characters unless they take a fall. That holds especially true when you can't determine the reason for the arrogance. She looks like some idiotic child when she attempts to strut in confidence. Harris (portraying Calypso) was decent, but the use of the never-present antagonist didn't really develop in the film. Also, that subplot, if you wish to call it that, was easily spotted. However, this was more the fault of the writers and the effects (what is that black crud in her mouth-- balckberries?) than the actress. Anyway, that performance was up's and down's. Rush was better in this film than the second, but the mystery of the character was lost. And besides, how many heros do we need? The runt, Bloom, was just as lackluster as in all his other films, and that's never surprising. He was only good in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that's because he never changed expressions. Finally, C.Y. Fat plays an excellent bad guy, but wasn't given the background needed to make the character likeable. Oh, and Nighy (sp?). A really great performance, Nighy ran the gambit of emotion and pulled them all off while wearing tentacles on his face. I was really impressed by that performance. You'll probably also notice that the chemistry between Bloom and Knightley is shriveled. And there's the real problem: the movie wasn't about a hero, a mystery, or anything you follow through the film. It was only about a goal with problems/hurdles thrown in along the way.

So, the effects were good, and visually the film is outstanding. The skits outside the main plot could have been polished or cut. The performances were average at best except for Nighy, Rush, and-- sometimes-- the monkey... just kidding. Depp did a fine job, and Richards was icing on the cake. As for the story, well, better luck next time. I get the feeling the writers just wanted to write a script to include all the stars. Ergo, I give it a 6.5/10 (5.5 if not for Richards).