AndyFerguson's Rating of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End

Andy's Review of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End

9 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes
Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End

Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End(2007)

[center][size=5][u]PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN[/u][/size][/center]
[center][size=5]AT WORLD'S END[/size][/center]
[center]director: Gore Verbinski[/center]
[center]PG-13, 165 minutes, Walt Disney[/center]
[center] [/center]

[center]It said a lot of director Gore Verbinski's talents when he managed to base an entire summer blockbuster on an amusement park ride, and make it entertaining, with 2003's [i]Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl[/i]. It could easily have been subtitled "The Mr. Depp Showcase" as well, seeing as he was almost the entire reason that film succeeded. The wildy popular box-office raking that spanned that entire summer for the film made it very clear that one day we would see an inevitable sequel. Verbinski once again stepped into the chair, as well as everyone in the original cast, for 2006's [i]Dead Man's Chest[/i], an unnecessary, but once again, surprisingly effective sequel based on one fact and one fact alone - that Depp decided to make the Jack Sparrow show a double-dose of energy and one-liner heaven. It was a miracle that both the first and second films in a franchise that already reached 5 hours, and about Disney-fied Pirates, could be so watchable. But the big Hollywood companies, always licking their chops when they see a treasure chest of summer money in front of them just had to go forward with yet another installment, this time calling it [i]At World's End[/i].[/center]
[center] [/center]

[center]As with nearly every sequel produced these days, everything in the further installments strives to be bigger, badder, and longer. After seeing this third film I cannot argue that it isn't every one of these aspects, just not in a good way. In fact, [i]At World's End [/i]tries to force so many of these new and improved things that it loses focus quickly, gets lost in the numerous new characters, and just spirals into one chaotic mess of a movie. The complaints can be drawn from anywhere for the film, and I must say that it had to be coming sooner or later, because to take a mediocre idea and try to stretch it out over 8 hours and 3 films is a death wish. Even with the good I found in the first two films, I still hadn't set any kind of standard for the third film, and therefore none of its awful qualities are a disappointment, but rather expected. There a lot of things happening in [i]At World's End[/i], and right from the start, but nothing that ever captured me like I was captured before. I was saddened to see that Depp was taken away as the main focus this time around, which is asking for major trouble, in favor of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom with far more significant roles. Needless to say, I have never been a fan of the two and they simply cannot carry a movie by themselves. They need to be supporting players to survive at any length or they will end up under the microscope for their failure to lead the way.[/center]
[center] [/center]

[center]The movie ultimately suffers most for its overload of things happening all at once, and it constantly does this for its entire, achingly long 2 hour and 45-minute running time. It was clearly evident that it didn't need to be this long, and a quick dissection of the overblown, messy and intelligence-insulting final act of action could have saved a good 25 minutes right there. There are far too many things wrong with this movie, which should be the final act but we all know won't be, because it is making more money than ever. A few years down the road audiences everywhere will be treated yet again to the adventures of Depp and...well, really nobody else - again. When that time comes I will finally come to my senses and hold off on a theater visit. [/center]