Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Bomb Rating: 

Director Gore Verbinski filmed two "Pirates" sequels simultaneously and it shows. Imagine trying to mix two cakes in the same bowl and you get some idea of what a mess this all is.

While watching "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," the sequel to the smash hit with the subtitle "Curse of the Black Pearl," I thought far more about another pirate movie. "Cutthroat Island" was a film that endured about as much ridicule as any movie can, and probably justifiably so, as director Renny Harlin found that audiences didn't indulge in his "my wife Geena Davis as swashbuckling hero" fantasies quite as much as he did, if at all.

I don't make the comparison due to any specific thematic elements, but rather because I can't remember anything about "Cutthroat Island." This is not surprising since the film came out 11 years ago. However, the fact that I walked out of the theater after "Dead Man's Chest" and found myself struggling to recount the plot speaks less to my bad memory and more to a desire to repress a horrific experience, like forgetting one was abused as a child. Maybe "Dead Man's Chest" will all come back to me 20 years from now -– a repressed memory that will likely cause an aneurysm.

Much of the original's hook came from the unexpected nature of following intersecting stories and the love triangle formed by sleazy pirate Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), hero-in-training Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and spunky Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley). At the beginning of "Dead Man's Chest," the marriage between Will and Elizabeth is disrupted by the Brits. Will is charged with finding Sparrow, who's off somewhere trying to avoid losing his soul to fellow pirate Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), who seems about 70 percent man and 30 percent squid and who, like Sparrow, is undead.

Following these intersecting stories now is like being jabbed in the groin with a cattle prod. Director Gore Verbinski filmed two "Pirates" sequels simultaneously and it shows. Imagine trying to mix two cakes in the same bowl and you get some idea of what a mess this all is. Feed a bunny crack and there'd be less manic jumping about. Where the original at least had some spunk, this sequel feels as though it's been spit out by a machine.

I realize that if one unfurls a poster of Orlando Bloom in any given public area, women will quickly gather around like flies to manure, but his last two films have been this and "Elizabethtown." Inflicting those two films on anyone should be considered a form of terrorism and, at the very least, Mr. Bloom should be deported. Frankly, I'd recommend that he be stopped at the border the next time he tries to enter this country and subjected to some indecency equal to that of his last two films; it's just that even I can think of nothing that horrid.

I suppose the good part for the filmmakers is that it lowers expectations for the next film.

To spread the word about this Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest review on Twitter.

To get instant updates of Mr. Cranky reviews, subscribe to our RSS feed.
5 Comments

Like This Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Review? Vote it Up.

0

Rate This Movie:

Other Cranky Content You Might Enjoy

  • Everybody who sees this film is going to ask the same question, so it's only fitting that I provide the answer quickly: "Because he knew he was going to be starring in a film produced by Jerry ('Blow

  • While on the surface it may not seem like such a bad idea to make a film about a kick-ass female pirate, the combination of nepotism, uninspired dialogue and Geena Davis's penchant for delivering her

  • I'm certain that anyone who's been to the movies a reasonable number of times over the last few years will have the same reaction I did after watching about five minutes of "Master and Commander." Tha

Pirates of Wall Street

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

  i 

{;-) Dan (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh) in Miami

 

I'm glad they're trying to get back the money, but...

TMundo's picture

...as if you didn't see the 'but' part comming, this is all stuff that should have been stipulated before the money was given.  Would it have been completely anti-free market to stipulate that the money could not be used for bonuses?  I mean bailing a company out isn't a free market principal any more than adding stipulations to the bailout contract itself.

If it was such a big deal to have the government tell the companies what they could or could not do with the money, and it's considered to socialist or communist, then why give out the money in the first place, I mean that could be considered to be the same thing.

Not to mention, when you gt a loan from a bank, the bank usually wants to know what you're going to do with the money.  They'll want to know your past credit history.  They'll  want to know what your going to do with the money, what you do for a living and how you're going to pay the money back.  If a bank can do it to a regular person, why cant the government just... oh forget it.

I don't see any judge interpreting the law in favor of giving the money back at this point, unless there's some sort of law they can dig up.

Smokescreen

Scumby's picture

This is all a smokescreen issue for the $200B that was laundered through AIG and handed to Goldman Sachs, Deutschbank, and other winners.  The solution proposed is withholding $180M from the next tens of billions in bailout loot given to these looters.  What a joke--symbolically holding back bailout money.

While beating down the bonuses gives me a warm snuggly feeling inside, I'm a lot more interested in who let $200B be stolen outside of congressional appropriation. 

I could see this coming last fall

FearlessFreep's picture

I haven't forgotten how Obama pushed his weight to get Dubya's bailout passed unchanged, when he was in a position to demand changes.  "Pragmatic" progressives politely looked the other way.

 

Want to pay for your internet movies? Don't hold your breath.

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Reed Hastings, Netflix's founder, told the Hollywood Reporter last month that it'll be 10 years before we see a streaming service that offers any movie at any time.

For the studios, that's terrible. Just like in the music business, eventually the entire home-video market is sure to move online, and many consumers will abandon pirate sites in favor of easy-to-use legal services. The music industry lost a lot of money when it dithered over this transition, and now the movie business seems to be making the same mistake. It could be raking in a lot of cash by selling us easy online rentals. Until it works out a plan to do so, there's always BitTorrent.

The reason is the incredibly complicated way movies are distributed by Hollyweird.

For more check out this article from slate.com:

http://www.slate.com/id/2216328/pagenum/2

{;-) Dan in Miami

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.