Sunday, September 07, 2008

Unintentional trilogies: why are they so bad?

We all remember what a good movie The Matrix was, neh? It wasn't art, but it hung together fairly well and was entertaining. It wasn't too ambitious. In a similar way, the first of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies wasn't bad. Sure, it didn't make a lot of sense, but it was fun and, crucially I think, the most of the bad guys were still pirates. I finally watched the last of the Pirates series and found it lacking. In the next two movies, the legal authorities became the sole bad guys and the pirates were some sort of strange, hippie-looking freedom fighters.

They went so far over the top with this in the third movie that it was just silly. And the idea that the destruction of piracy is a bad thing? Ignorant in the extreme. Pirates were and, where they still exist, are a scourge of sadistic, murdering thieves that the world is far better off without.

The first movie had its own plot holes. (Why were the pirates afraid that Elizabeth would drop the coin over the side? Aren't they drawn to it when it touches water? Can't they stay under water without drowning?) But they could be overlooked. At least they didn't introduce characters without cause 2/3 of the way through the story. (Calypso? Really?) And there were things left without explanation. What happened to Davy Jones? What happened to Calypso? Who thought it would be a good idea to cast Keith Richards? There were too many impossibilities that didn't even make sense within the context of the movie. The duel in the maelstrom? The way none of the ships seemed to actually need the wind to move? When it's all tallied up, it's too much. The second two movies fail.