"Pirates of the Caribbean: The
Curse of the Black Pearl"
Directed by Gore Verbinski.
Written by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio.
Starring Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley and Geoffrey
Rush.
Release Year: 2003
Review Date: 7/16/03 Folks--
The Year of the Action Film just keeps on
rolling downhill. This time around, the action comes courtesy of
Walt Disney (of all dead people) and believe the great reviews you
are seeing--“Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”
is a solid night at the movies.
The film’s biggest problem is that it is
simply too long; at 143 minutes (!), director Gore Verbinski (he
redid “The Ring” from last year) needed better work from his editor,
especially in the middle of the film where we get a lot of people hangin’ out on boats waiting for something to happen. But the rest
is great stuff, and I think most of the thanks can go to two
entities:
1) Johnny Depp. No one defines “up-and-down
acting career” like Depp; loved
“From Hell”,
“Blow” sucked. But
here in “Pirates”, I felt like Depp was just having a blast playing
Captain Jack Sparrow, and he does so much with just his hands and
his near-drunken drawl that every time he is ABOUT to say something,
I or someone in my audience was laughing out loud. Sparrow leans
around a corner, looks at something, squints and wrinkles his
mustache…THEN he says something unintelligible. He has most of the
good lines, and he had so many that I struggle to remember them
all. Maybe his best comes in an exchange with Will Turner (Orlando
Bloom, slightly less dreamy for the ladies this time around), when
the two have a swordfight that ends with Sparrow pulling a gun on
Turner:
Turner: “You cheated!”
Sparrow [pointing at himself]: “Uhh…pirate?”
Comedy. It’s all about timing. From his
hilarious opening scene “high” above the masthead of his ship to his
constant annoyance that people forget to call his character
“Captain”, Depp looks like he showed up focused on the set of the
film to turn in some great work. I read recently that Depp based
his character in part on the real-life stylings of Keith Richards;
you can kind of see this with all of the slurring and the hand
movement, cause that is some funny stuff. This performance is
already my second-favorite of the year after Will Ferrell’s in
“Old
School”, and it will be a shame that neither will be nominated for
an Oscar because both are worthy of one. (However, the upside might
be that both will be nominated for Lead Actor at the 2004 MTV Movie
Awards, eh??) Mike Yac, rest in peace, my friend...
2) The costume & makeup departments. I’ll
give Verbinski and the screenwriters (the guys that wrote
“Shrek”)
credit for making sure that all of the pirates are of the smarmy
“DARRRR, matey!!” variety, and it is quite funny to see all of the
bad guys threaten good people with “DARRR!” every time they are
about to raise their swords. But, it all comes home with the
character appearances throughout the film; the makeup department, in
particular, will hopefully be nominated for this work next March
come Oscar time. Have you ever seen shittier-looking teeth for a
whole film? Captain Jack Sparrow wearing the most Pirate of Pirate
accessories…eyeliner??? Even the beautiful Zoe Caldana (from the
shitty Britney flick “Crossroads”) is made to look rough around the
edges; solid.
All of the acting is great here; Geoffrey
Rush, Jonathan Pryce and Kevin McNally as Sparrow’s old pirate
friend Gibbs all give you the feeling that these guys cared about
the bottom line. “Pirates” has enough of the Pirates 101 guidebook
in place--drunken sailors, boosted bodices thanks to
“Bend It Like
Beckham” star Keira Knightley, men swinging on ropes to board ships,
cannon fire, swordfights, parrots, bar fights, shootouts, a dirty
monkey and lost treasure. The film must have been expensive but
from the looks of it, it was all worthwhile.
Pretty close to an Opening Weekend, were it
not for the obscene running time.
Rating: $9.50 Show
Comments? Drop me a line at
justin@bellviewmovies.com.
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Office Space").
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
half stars."
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard
Vice"-rated movies.)