i dont think this film really received the credit it deserves. it is i guess a 'bad' film, but i think this is intentional.. its quite obviously based on the swashbucklers from the time of technicolour and before. i think its an homage to these, the over the top acting, bad accents and classic score.
anybody agree?
Hey, I was just pondering this question myself. I posted the following review on IMDB, answering it, but since reviews don't appear for 2-3 days, I reproduce the text here for your benefit:
This enjoyably foolish romp was apparently a flop, and mauled by the critics. Why? Good question. I speculate three reasons: lack of an obviously American lead and presence, an opening set-up that pays off in the long run but doesn't provide a beginning with a bang, and an anarchic, politically incorrect, almost amoral tone that was not digestible to Disneyfied mainstream audiences. These, and the length of the piece, would have been strengths if this had been released as a children's book, and I further speculate that it would have been well received in such a format, as a homage to old stories like Treasure Island. It could then have been adapted into a hit movie (with more explosions and an ethically impeccable American hero who does get the girl in the end).
As it is, there is much to admire, delight and entertain, with legitimate criticisms being some of the dodgy casting and (lack of)linguistics (especially as regards the Spanish characters) - Walther Matthau's gloriously over-the-top performance honourably excepted - some lapses of logic in the plot (why doesn't the Frog just swim after the rowboat and bring it back when they get stuck on the chain?), and the fact that it is slightly too long.
Ripe for a sequel, if, like me, you ever wondered what happened to Cap'n Red and his beloved throne, and The Frog and his beloved Dolores.
8/10
I think you really hit the nail on the head saying that the more challenging style is a reason it flopped. shame really
share[deleted]
"some lapses of logic in the plot (why doesn't the Frog just swim after the rowboat and bring it back when they get stuck on the chain?)"
It is never said outright, but it is quite common knowledge that they didn't teach sailors to swim in those days. The reason being that if a ship wrecked at sea and the sailors jumped, nobody would be near to pick them up, thus the ability to swim would just prolong the inevitable death by drowning. The contradiction that people who earn their living on the sea can't swim is quite fun, and if known, quite gruesome. Therefor, in the end of the movie, when the captain and his throne goes one way, and the villians another, they leave everybody else dying behind them.
Therefor, when they find themselves stuck on the chain, seeing the rowboat slowly drift away, they know they are stuck until someone picks them up. Because they can't swim. The captain clearly risks his life by being captured, instead of trying to swim ashore. And of course, he couldn't leave his beloved golden throne.
I've never heard about the swimming teaching part again. Are you sure it's true? After all I guess sailors wouldn't wait to sail before they knew how to swim. Either they already knew since childhood or not. Though I believe that a tagline mentioning that would help the audience understand the reason they just stood there.
I gave the explanation that in case one of them swum over there the other one would not be able to balance the heavy throne on the chain.
"Lapses of logic" tend to be synonym to filmaking as filmakers sacrifice logic when the plot gets rough or boring. If I were there and I'd found difficulty in getting the throne on the other side I'd make an effort all the way to either of the two ends of the chain were you can clearly see that the distance from the water is larger and the throne fits under it. But then again, Polanski gave to his characters also a rather large touch of stupidity so there's no reason to argue about it.
No obvious American lead? Walter Matthau? That's pretty damn obvious.
sharePirates makes a miss or two couple of times, but it's still a darn great comedy-adventure. However, as already stated before, the movie's slightly too long. Anyway, it's extremely underrated. I'd give it 8 or 9 out of 10.
shareThis is by far my favorite pirates movie, and one of my favorite movies ever. I was quite surprised that it had only 5.7/10...
share
George Lucas gave one great piece of advice to adventure film directors - pan past and through your sumptous set designs and make-ups, concentrate on your characters. Meaning that, if its a Star Wars movie have throw away background wonders, this is why they are so digestible, even with pretty ropey dialogue. Polanski is so absorbed in the money he spent on sets props and costumes that the camera lingers on them. Longeurs on practically empty spaces killed potentially thrilling moments in his recent 'Oliver Twist' adaptation.
You can take a horse to water, but you can't climb a ladder with a bell in both hands.
You're babbling. Star Wars movies are very much about "background wonders", otherwise they wouldn't spend so much on them.
I don't understand how do you expect actors showing up without costumes or make-ups, which are distracting in your opinion. I don't think many people would agree with you on this one. I also didn't notice any problems with "empty spaces" in "Oliver Twist", which isn't an adventure film by the way. The city and every other place in the movie seemed very much alive to me.
I would say that Pirates is a well made film, with many great moments, especially in the first 30 minutes. However, the story (for me) dragged on after that, and the hammy style wore thin for the long running length. I wish it had been shorter.
That said, the actors are all pretty good and there are several very memorable scenes (like the rat eating), which is more than most films can offer. However, I wouldn't give it over a 6 rating.
ye be running in my ear!
share[deleted]
This film is quite similar in tone to Polanski's other genre comedy, The Fearless Vampire Killers. In both films he displays a quirky, somewhat morbid sense of humour, which doesn't wash well with mainstream tastes. I thought Pirates was pretty funny, though. Matthau is great in it, although according to Polanski, the production was very difficult and he and the star did not get along.
If you like Pirates, be sure to check out Richard Lester's two Musketeer films from 73 and 74.
[deleted]
this is a good one, i enjoyed it much. actually better than the depp pirate movies by a good bit and i liked those too.
shareIt looks good, professionally made, but it's not particularly interesting or funny or exciting...
It needed to be either a lot better or much worse to even be memorable.
I think it was rather dull, too a while to get going and nothing too memorable about it.
Pirate movies in recent times were disastrous until the POTC films.
Its that man again!!
Because it is AWFUL! What a botch. Movies like this really put a stake through the heart of the "Director as auteur" theory.
----------------------------------------------
"Why do people always laugh in the wrong places?"
--Jack Sparrow
Because it's rubbish. Here is my review:
I can only believe that the previous reviewers were either smoking something or had been handsomely paid off. I have never seen such a load of complete tosh from beginning to end. It has a stellar cast including a very early appearance by Michael Elphick in a performance that lasts all of two minutes before he is killed, but they are totally wasted.
Where to begin? The film lacks pace throughout, there are long drawn out scenes that lead absolutely nowhere. For example in the final battle on the Neptune we are treated to the sight of a sombrero wearing pirate laboriously loading his musket. Obviously this is a set up for a sight gag. No it’s just some guy laboriously loading a musket. What on earth was the Frog supposed to be doing? You could have cut his part completely and made absolutely no difference to the story, the actor looked completely bewildered for most of the time as indeed I was trying to figure out what was going on. By the way a storyline would have been nice. The humour was on a level of a small child calling out “bottoms” in a crowded supermarket, but not so sophisticated! The ending, when it mercifully came, seemed to be in mid scene. One minute they are fighting to rescue the heroine, the next you get the cast list – heroine still not rescued!
And for God’s sake props people and armourers do try and get it right. The number of times someone was supposed to have fired a flintlock with the frizzen forward was unbelievable. The actual props were awful, the firearms looking like some cheap tourist souvenir.
A totally bewildering waste of time. Complete rubbish. I give it Minus 100 out of 10.
Settled, then.
shareOP: "I don´t think this film really received the credit it deserves".
Well since it´s kind of hard to give Pirates ´less´ credit than it´s got, I suppose I agree with that. It´s not, however, like we´re talking some unsung masterpiece here - the first 45 or so minutes are pretty amusing and look promising, but then the thing just drifts into long, dull scenes with lots of blathering or confusingly filmed, unengaging set pieces (someone wrote that Polanski isn´t very good at shooting action and he´s definitely right). Which is kind of pity because Walter Matthau seems to have worked hard to give us such an unconventionally and joyously vile, amoral "hero" with a hilarious English accent; he really would have deserved a better movie to be in. Overall, the film´s main problem is that - despite some typically Polanskian absurdist touches - it´s just not much fun. Ain´t as bad as his idiotic 1972 film What?, but on the other hand, it doesn´t have that film´s value as an over-the-top curiosity, either. I gave it a 5/10.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I rather agree with Franz as I've just sat through 90% of it, actually I didn't know it was a Polanski, Walter Matthau did give it his best shot without resorting to voodoo hokum, (although he was probably a little too much East-end Fagin for the location), and the first 45 mins was the best with Frog's fantastic face-plant on the grease (once aboard the ship) worthy of the great Guybrush Threepwood himself- something I don't remember Depp's character doing in POTC, although I must admit I do enjoy watching that series.
The plot of Pirates seemed rather strung out and twice when I looked in at the screen seemed to be re-playing the tedious courtship rituals of the spanish dandy, different location, same script- so...just filler then...
Otherwise the pre-billed "adult humour" was within bounds- the rat dining experience being one of the highlights, there were just too many strung out bits between plot developments which is why I eventually hit the off button. (And does that dame know more than one song??)
Now, if you want a good pirate movie- try "The Crimson Pirate"- now there's the original tongue-in-cheek swashbuckler for you! (Although Frog's climbing up the figurehead was definitely an homage to his silent gymnastic sidekick...)