Special Coverage 2008 Fall Movie PreviewThe Must ListBox Office ChallengeSound Bites
pirates_l
WHERE'S THE RUSH? Gleiberman contends that even if Pirates ''in some literal way, 'makes sense,' my argument is that very little of it makes sense emotionally''
By Owen Gleiberman
Owen Gleiberman
Owen Gleiberman
Owen Gleiberman is a film critic for EW

In case you're wondering how closely the writers at Entertainment Weekly follow what's posted on our message boards, have no fear, we read and absorb it all, even when it hurts. In the case of my review of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, I have listened to the haters, the fans, the complaints about cranky critics who automatically resent and skewer any movie that's a blockbuster (gee, what an accurate summation of my track record!) — but, most of all, I have followed, with mounting fascination, a furious ongoing debate among devotees of the series over the Plot Confusion Factor.

Assuming that our readers can serve as a healthy statistical sample, I'd sum it up like this: Half of the folks who went to see the latest Pirates movie think that it's a mess — illogical and overstuffed, a knotted-up ball of narrative twine you have to untangle, in vain, as you watch it. The other half of you are adamant, to the point of righteousness, about how utterly logical and easy to follow At World's End is, assuming that you have a brain. (Or, to put in message-board speak: If only you had a brain, idiot!)

But wait a minute. People can disagree on whether a movie is good or not, but shouldn't it be a matter of more...objectivity whether what's happening on screen actually make sense? (I've seen plenty of bad films in which the stories add up just fine.) Either the plot hangs together or it doesn't, right? As someone who is squarely in the Pirates-is-a-mess camp, I'm intrigued by what this division in the ranks reveals: about what ''following'' a story now means, and about how that reflects what viewers want (or don't want) from movies today. Here are a few thoughts:

First, let's get a bit more detailed about what those, like me, who think that At World's End is muddled and confusing are really talking about. Yes, there are things in the film that flat-out make no sense. Like, for instance, why is Jack Sparrow, in the final storm-tossed battle, engaged in a furious 15-minute sword fight with Davy Jones if Davy Jones can't even be killed (or, at least, not in that way)?

Yet that's almost beside the point. The real problem with At World's End is that it's a massive collection of loose ends — plot points that are introduced and not quite followed through, so that we're asked to twist our attention in a certain direction, only to be caught, time and again, staring into space (though there's plenty of visual hoohah to fill the void). When Lord Cutler Beckett, the scoundrel of the East India Trading Company, extracts a promise from Jack Sparrow to betray his comrades, the betrayal, initially, makes sense — Jack, a bit of a scoundrel himself, wants to get back to a merry pirate's life of sailing and boozing, without all of these damned obligations. But for all the focus and gravitas that's placed upon this moment of ''intrigue,'' it pays off...not at all. It's a red herring. Jack never does much to tilt the action Beckett's way, and he is never really forced into confrontation with his friends. The whole backroom-scam subplot doesn't develop and surge — it just evaporates. Which is subtly depressing. It's as if the film were promising the audience a soupçon of human complication, then turning around and betraying us. (Hey, you were actually invested in that situation? Too bad!)

NEXT PAGE: ''What's really muddled in At World's End isn't logic, per se, but any semblance of a human dramatic experience.''


Page 1 of 2