The film follows the exploits of Yellowbeard the pirate, escaping prison after 20 years of incarceration. He is essentially the human embodiment of the Muppets’ character Animal, as he glares out from a face that’s all teeth and wild hair, and spends his time killing, raping (to which the women only seem to marginally object), and – if there’s still time – seeking his long lost treasure. To do so he begrudgingly enlists the aid of his son, who he’d conceived the night before his arrest 20 years prior, as well as the additional aid of Dr. Gilpen and Lord Percy Lambourn (played by Peter Cook, who portrays the clueless drunk with astounding genius.) They’re pursued by the British Navy and government agents (particularly a Blind Pew, a sightless spy with preternatural hearing.)

The piratey exploits are filled to the scuppers with sight and verbal gags – most of which come across rather well. There is the occasional dud or weirdness for the apparent sake of weirdness, but these are easily forgotten as the film moves on to more worthwhile material – the smuggling of whores onboard a ship, for example (apparently packing them inside a giant alligator skin doesn’t fool the bos’n like it used to.)

It’s a very fun movie, and even the bad parts are entertaining. Best watched with good friends and a dose or two of rum. Innebriation isn’t required to enjoy Yellowbeard, but it doesn’t hurt.

As in all things, the truth lies somewhere in between. I won’t rehash my thoughts on the second flick, Dead Man’s Chest. Suffice to say I enjoyed it – more or less. But it wasn’t remotely in the same league as Curse of the Black Pearl, and was burdened with many flaws that could have been easily avoided.

So on to At World’s End. No surprise, it picks up shortly after Dead Man’s Chest left off – Jack’s lost to the world, Norrington is an Admiral for the East India Company, and Turner, Swann, and friends are on a trek to rescue Jack from Davy Jones’ Locker. The opening scene, featuring Lord Beckett’s efforts to purge the caribbean of pirates via mass executions, is troubling and haunting. And it’s also surprisingly brutal, which brings up a point I’d like to address: Kids will see this flick. I know it’s PG-13, and I know that all the commercials highlight this fact and suggest it may not be suitable for the youngins. But in this way Disney is being completely disingenious. They can tout that this isn’t a kid’s flick all they want, but when they turn around and sell Jack Sparrow action figures, Jack Sparrow pajamas, Jack Sparrow bubble bath (I’m not kidding) and so on – don’t try and tell me they don’t intend for kids to see this movie.

So back to the brutal opening – in this scene, the brutality is pointed and powerful. It opens the film in a way that sets an important tone, and so I’ll forgive Disney for this foray into troubling territory. Less forgiveable are the gratouitous violent segments that come later – battles will of course happen, but when a musket shot to a Singapore chick’s brain is punctuated with eyes rolling into the back of her head as she collapses dead in a zombie-like fashion, it makes me wish Disney had been a little more honest with themselves about their target audiences. Sexual content also crosses the line from the slick innuendo of the first film to a more crass level of innappropriateness when the one-eyed pirate Reggetti enjoys an opportunity to glare up Elizabeth’s robe. Both of these examples would be of little note in an average PG-13 movie, but to my mind are out of place in something every 8 year old in the county is dying to see.

OK, I’ve rambled on that point long enough – sorry, but it bothers me. Let’s talk a bit about what’s good in this film, and I’ll try to keep it relatively spoiler-free. The visuals, for a start, where incredible. From the seedy underbelly of Singapore to the edge of the world to the final sea battles, this movie is a definite marvel to look upon. Also impressive was Keith Richard’s role as Captain Teague (a character that I had dreaded since first hearing that Jack Sparrow’s father was to be featured in the sequels, as I couldn’t imagine this being anything other than cheesy and painful to watch. I was pleasantly proven wrong.) Less impressive, however, was Tia Dalma’s eventual exit, which seemed somewhat a “we couldn’t think of anything better at the time, so we just went with this” sort of scene.

It’s worth noting is that many of Dead Man’s Chest’s shortcomings were at least partially remedied this time around – Elizabeth is once again competent and strong (gone is the poutiness of the last film), Jack is in at least somewhat cleverish, and Barbossa – after sitting out the second film almost entirely – is back in full force. Unfortunately, one major pitfall that was deftly avoided in the first two flicks was finally struck in part three – that being clever, humanlike animals. If anyone can tell me when Barbossa’s monkey became a demolitions expert, I’d love to hear it.

World’s End certainly has its shortcomings, but it is much improved from the hiccup that was Dead Man’s Chest. Truly, its greatest failing is just not having enough time for itself. From the already complicated plotlines of the primary characters to the introductions of the apparently fascinating (but then completely under-utilized) pirate lords, this movie sometimes feels like a long series of fascninating-yet-unexplored facets strung together with stunning visuals. As the two movies were written simultaneaously, it would have been nice had they removed some of Dead Man’s Chest’s nonsensical filler (read that, “Cannibal Island”) in exchange for making more room for expanding on the more interesting segments of World’s End. Woulda shoulda coulda…

I enjoyed At World’s End. I enjoyed it a lot. It wasn’t the benchmark film that was Curse of the Black Pearl, but it was very good in its own right. And the ending, I felt, was perfectly satisfying. I liked where everyone ended up, and some gutsy choices were made that pissed off some viewers, but that I felt gave the conclusion some teeth that would have otherwise been lost. Let me reiterate this last point, just in case anyone from Disney is reading this – the Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy ended WELL! Let it remain so, and for the love of Mickey, please don’t make another unless you’re truly up to the challenge in the same vein as you were with Black Pearl. Otherwise, walk away from a job (mostly) well done.

Some bad movies are just that – bad. They should be ignored, dismissed, or burned. They have no value and are a waste of your existence to even consider viewing. Other bad movies are an ironic piece of brilliance, enjoyable on levels that no “good” movie could ever hope to achieve. These movies are meant for a group of rowdy friends sharing rum. But this movie? It lies firmly within one of these categories, and I strongly suspect it’s the former.

Basically “Treasure Island”, but with gratuitous man-eating bugs. I say gratuitous because they’re barely used – this movie would be essentially unchanged if you removed them. But there they are, nonetheless – towering over Long John, and bellowing their maneating howls as they shudder in harmless CGI malevolence.

Also gratuitous is the plentiful PG-13 cleavage. Nothing actually naughty here – just enough to catch your attention, but never enough that you’d fear your mom walking in on you and asking, “so what’s this smut you’re watching?”

So what else need be said? I suppose I could go on about the story, but it’s more fun to hone in on the weird little details, such as Blind Pew’s googly eyes. They’re shown in the first 30 seconds, and I immediately shouted at the TV, “you CAN’T be serious!” Apparently they were.

Of course, movies such as this shouldn’t be held to any real continuity standards, which is good, because it means I don’t have to mention the colonial flags used, which bounce between the revolutionary war “Betsy Ross” flag with its circle of stars, then to a more civil war era square pattern, and then back again. Yes, I’m glad I don’t have to mention that. Nor should I mention Anne Bonney’s sudden reappearance towards the end of the film, after I thought she’d just been killed. A quick rewind showed what I think might have been her recovering from her bullet wound, but I lost interest as I noticed her outfit getting skimpier with each scene (but still safely within the limitations of PG-13 discretion – have no fear.)

Oh, and let’s not forget the rubber skeleton mask.

Weird. Not good, but very, very weird.

The story begins shortly after the first movie ended. Will and Elizabeth’s wedding is cut short by the arrival of the East India Tea Company, and adventure ensues. Both find themselvse seperately pursuing the same goal – that being the meeting up with Jack Sparrow, and the retreival of his compass. But I don’t need to rehash the plot – you’ve already seen it. And if not, go see it. It’s worth it.

So what’s good in the sequel? Lots. Chief amongst them is Tia Dalma, the creepy voodoo lady who lives “up river,” and provides our heros with sage wisdom and jars of dirt. Her performance is stunning, and her persona is at once off-putting yet beautiful. Also terrific was Davy Jones. A definite trend-breaker amongst bad guys, Jones has a strangely nasally voice that nonetheless manages to be frightening when need be. Davy Jones’ ship and crew are equally gorgeous, although a little over the top for my taste.

What’s not so good? A wildly fragmented plot, for starters – including a huge detour to a cannibal island that really does very little to drive the story forward, and merely serves to show Jack acting goofy while his crew escapes from incredibly unlikely cages. Also difficult for me to buy is Norrington’s extreme departure from his previous sense of duty and honor – just because he’s on the outs doesn’t need to mean he loses all self-respect and starts rolling his eyes and acting like an imbicile. But most difficult to accept of all is Elizabeth’s sudden and inexplicable affection for Jack Sparrow. She spends the entire film disgusted at the very notion – and yet there she is at the end, hungering for old Jack.

One aspect of this film that seems largely overlooked is the character development of Jack Sparrow himself. In the first film, we saw him as a quirky and independent rogue, seeking to reclaim his ship. Only in Deadman’s Chest do we finally get to see him performing his duties as a pirate captain, and you know what? He stinks at it. He drags his crew through several dangerous misadventures in the pursuit of his own interests, without even a hope of profit, and gets most of them killed in the process. He can’t take much of anything seriously, and he’s even willing to betray Will Turner and then engage in “soul harvesting.” Pirates are generally untrustworthy, true. But I have to wonder why Jack commands such respect and loyalty from Gibbs, Cotton, and Marty when they’ve nothing to gain from it, and with every likelyhood that Jack will bail on them when things get rough. Call me a traitor to the genre, but I’m beginning to understand why Barbossa and company mutineed – I think I’d leave Jack on a deserted island too.

Jack’s more hammy than endearing, the action is more illogical than fantastic, and there are a few too many repeat jokes from the first film. But it’s a visual marvel, no doubt. And the plot – if a bit over long and unpolished – is still gripping. I’m somewhat dissappointed, but enjoyed the it just the same. And I’ll certainly be there on opening weekend come the third instalment.

Most likely this lame effort at a pirate movie was originally created to cash in on the more worthy films of the time, and this re-release is probably a similar effort to cash in on today’s success of Pirates of the Caribbean.

Don’t bother.

Not quite bad enough to be a complete mockery, but not terribly good, and the filmmakers made some very strange choices in the creation of this film. Most noteworthy is their departure from any faithfulness to the book by having the officers of the Hispaniola betray Jim, thus forcing him to join the pirates. Now, I’m all for trying new things, but it just felt awfully contrived. The Captain’s character especially may as well have been written by a twelve-year-old, right down to when he grabs Long John’s crutch and throws it out of reach like a playground bully. And rewriting the beginning to attribute Long John’s wooden leg, Pew’s blindness, and Black Dog’s scars all to a single fateful day may have looked good in script, but struck me as dopey.

This film has numerous other details that are all too easy to pick apart: Why doesn’t Ben Gunn have a beard (three years on an island usually results in more than a five o’clock shadow)? Why doesn’t Long John, a life-long pirate, know a damned thing about sailing? And why have what should have been a four second chase scene between Hawkins and Black Dog seemingly last half an hour, especially when it wasn’t remotely interesting or funny?

Nice try, but pretty lame.

Heston’s lackluster performance aside, it’s a fantastic movie, and definitely my favorite interpretation of a fantastic book.

In a word, “eh.”

For crying out loud! Even the monkey is bad! He’s ugly and he can’t even look cute when saluting! The plot was tired, the action was dull, and only Mathew Modine and Frank Langella put up even passable performances! Disagree? Watch it again and then try to defend the line “Bad Dawg” to me – AWFUL!!!

The only reason I’ll watch this movie again (and I will, God help me) is in that sick hope that somehow it will be better next time around. It won’t be though – and I’ll curse Geena Davis for it.

OK, fine. While I’m here I suppose I should say a little about this movie that I haven’t seen elsewhere. Much that’s been said elsewhere is worth repeating – Jack Sparrow is fantastic. Elizabeth Swann is a wonderful actress and sooo very hot. Will Turner, well, I’m not all swoony about Orlando Bloom, but the character he’s meant to portray is a hotheaded blacksmith, and he portrays him quite well. But the one under-rated character in all this is Commodore Norrington. By all rights, this character should have been the butt of the movie. He’s a pompous authority figure who dresses like a dandy and manages to lose his captive (twice,) lose his ship, and lose the girl – yet through it all he remains honorable and comes across as the noblest man of the whole lot. I think this is an incredible achievement by both the writers and the actor. And it’s details like this that make this a remarkably splendid film.