Skip to main content

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge
(aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales)
(2017)

(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with something different.


Animosity towards Johnny Depp has now reached such sustained levels that any new announcement of his casting is greeted not only with disdain towards his eccentric performance shtick but also accompanying judgements regarding the allegations made by his ex and a profligate lifestyle that makes Nic Cage look frugal; it seems he has been forever sullied, so therefore ripe for rehabilitation over the next five years or so. In the meantime, he’s hopping about projects, hitching his cart to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Universal’s Dark Universe (as The Invisible Man, if the touted franchise gets that far) and various dark side turns in LAbyrinth and King of the Jungle; where his Thin Man remake is currently, I don’t know, although maybe playing another cheerful inebriate right now wouldn’t be the most considered of options.


I can’t say I’ve really been on board with the general acrimony towards his performances. Sure, there’s the occasional stinker (his Mad Hatter is as misjudged as his Willy Wonka), and his Fantastic Beasts cameo is mainly notable for retrospectively doing a disservice to Colin Farrell’s performance, but he still has his comic chops about him (I liked Mortdecai, for the record), and thus Jack Sparrow is still, largely, an entertaining character, all ifs allowing (if you can bear to watch a movie now with Depp without moral reservations, if you don’t find his ham insufferably old, if you don’t find the character about a decade past his sell by date).


Whether he’s robbing banks (ingeniously but badly; the elaborate set piece is both ludicrous and impressive), facing the guillotine (the revolving see-saw effect is a lovely piece of comic inventiveness), simply pratfalling over a fence, or commenting on the soppy reunion of pure hearts (“What a truly revolting sight”), Sparrow can still elicit a chuckle or even a guffaw; Depp’s timing hasn’t yet deserted him. If he brings a modicum of broad wit, however, much of the rest of the dialogue is unable to pass muster. An extended riff on the definition of horologist begins amusingly enough but is indulged a couple of times too many, while a rescue scene between Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites) and Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario), on the topic of where he has put his hands, is so bereft, it’s painful to watch.


Yes, the obligatory young nominal leads. On Stranger Tides should have been a warning that it isn’t just the plankish originals who can come a cropper with starchy, one-dimensional romantic leads, as Sam Claflin and Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, talented both, were stranded high and dry, entirely unmemorable. Here, there isn’t even that luck. The jury’s out on Scodelario (she’s fine in The Maze Runners, forgettable here) but Thwaites proves yet again how entirely eagerly irksome he is (see also the main downside to the otherwise surprisingly enjoyable Gods of Egypt). 


I guess, to give him his due, he acts Bloom of the screen in their scene together, but so does Lewis McGowan playing Henry’s 12-year-old self, so that isn’t exactly a meaningful gauge. Poor Orlando, reduced to revisiting roles he only won in the first place because he was pretty; now he’s too old to be a pin-up (a shocking 40), he’s left with nothing to fall back on.


That the need was felt to return to this well is the most aggravating aspect of Salazar’s Revenge, even if Will Turner is more peripheral than I feared. And, as these things go, it was at least appropriate to bring back Keira for closure’s sake (she still looks very young, of course, because she still is very young), although her bank balance was probably the deciding factor. And yet, it isn’t closure, is it? Despite being heralded as “the final adventure” (not betting on its success, more like, given Depp’s falling star), the post-credits scene sets up a sixth instalment… with Will and Elizabeth back again, properly this time, Gawd help us. It indicates, if indication were needed, that Disney has no idea what makes the franchise tick, and the mistakes haven’t only been down to regular screenwriters Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio.


Because Jeff Nathson’s screenplay is frequently doing its best to give you franchise fatigue. This is the first entry without Elliott and Rossio providing the goods (Rossio is co-credited with story), and the at-best oddball edge they brought to their work (Small Soldiers, the first couple of Pirates, Shrek, The Lone Ranger) is largely absent. Nathanson has a clutch of underwhelming sequel credits to his name (including Speed 2, Rush Hours 2 and 3 and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and one senses the last thing you go to him for is innovation or inspiration. Thus, the movie’s MacGuffin manages to be both moribund and all sorts of horrible in terms of coherent properties and the logic of its location.


The Trident of Poseidon break all sea curses, we are told, so can aid Henry (continuity) in releasing his father (continuity) and Barbossa’s daughter (continuity) in just being plain inquisitive, and Javier Bardem’s Salzar in getting revenge on Sparrow (continuity, of a less severe order, until we get a flashback telling us how Jack got his last name). Also in the mix, the connection of Jack’s compass to the efficacy of curse of the Devil’s Triangle isn’t established in a way that makes any sense. Further, Barbossa must surely know where the Trident is, if he’s the one who produced the diary he gave to his daughter who uses it to navigate to the island of its location? 


There’s additional, all-encompassing, unnecessary father-daughter continuity right there, quite beside having made Barbossa steadily more ineffectual with each successive instalment; he’s gone from the villain to the compassionate, caring pater (about the one sensible move made here is killing him off; no reflection on Rush’s spirited performance, but including the character each time is unnecessary baggage that bogs down storytelling opportunities). Come to that, Davy Jones’ return (continuity) oughtn’t to be possible, given he was also victim of a now-broken curse (I’m sure it will be written to work, if box office receipts warrant the final final adventure).


With these movies, there’s an opportunity to mix things up as much as you want, as long as Jack Sparrow stays the same. Instead, everything remains the same, with interchangeable piratical or admiralty villains. Bardem fits both, pretty much (albeit Spanish navy, rather than admiralty) and aside from strangely swishing undersea locks in open air, he’s easily the least distinctive of the Sparrow’s nemeses. About the only point of note I can summon is how unreservedly bloodthirsty he is, despatching Barbossa’s crew at any opportunity, which at least creates a sense of stakes. David Wenham is an even less important side antagonist as Naval Lieutenant Scarfield, suitably dislikeable, but not inexcusably so since this is mostly directed at Henry, and exiting the proceedings in an unsurprisingly offhand, “did you notice?” manner.


Salazar’s Revenge is overlong, despite being the shortest in the series, but at least its all-out CGI climax is one of the better ones (who can forget the interminable finale of At World’s End?) There’s some vibrant visualisation (the ship sailing along the edge of a wall of water) and a sense of grounded escalation, despite the pixels flying about. In general, though, this is very much in keeping with the tone of its predecessors, too much so to stand on its own two feet. That’s unsurprising, as even the US title is virtually indistinguishable from the second instalment’s (I’m guessing that was why Salazar’s Revenge was plumped for elsewhere, despite the resultant glaring title miscue of Salazar’s saying “Dead Men Tell No Tales” only for the title card to be entirely different).


Rønning and Sanberg are more than capable of putting together a decent action/chase sequence and weaving humour into the mix, such as the decomposing shark attack/Salazar chase; it’s mainly in the adjunct characters that weariness sets in. Particularly so when bright spots aren’t made the most of, or when it’s recognised that less is more. After expecting the worst, Beckham’s cameo in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword wasn’t nearly as woeful as suggested; the same can be said of Paul McCartney’s here. It’s certainly better than Keith Richards’ in At World’s End (he gets a laugh, for a start, telling a joke with no punchline). In contrast, there’s much, much too little of Golshifteh Farahani’s bewitching witch Shansa, and one can only hope, if they do a sixth, that she’ll be on board (although, that would entail more continuity). Stephen Graham is also good value as crewman Scrum, and certainly garlands the most excruciating moment, as his crewmates attempt to extract one of his toenails to pick a lock.


It’s probably fair to say, four sequels in, that very few who didn’t like the previous outing(s) are going to be checking Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge out, and on that level, like the Transformers series (entries of which I have seen at the cinema: zero), it’s critic-proof by this point. Like that franchise, Pirates’ US box office performance has diminished as international takings have offered compensation, which is unlikely to be as substantial this time out. I’m not all that keen on a sixth bringing Will, Elizabeth and Davy Jones (and the blessed Thwaites to boot) back, but on the other hand, Jack Sparrow; these movies have become akin to the Marx Brothers’ stint with MGM, where you fast-forward through the romance and songs to get to the comic business; while that side still delivers, I’m still game.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?