Blackbeard

I know this is coming more than 7 years late, but no worries.

I watched this one several months ago and completely forgot about it until after I watched 'Blackbeard: Terror at Sea', also a UK TV movie, which was released one week after this one on the 10th September, 2006. I came looking for the cast of Terror at Sea and came across two conflicting films from the same month and year and realized I had in fact watched this one as well and wasn't so impressed.

This 'Pirates: The True Story of Blackbeard' truly is a 'mummers farce'(to borrow from Game of Thrones). Okay acting and costuming but terrible story line and characterization, that seems more fiction than anything, made for simple minded audiences to believe.

If you want more accuracy and less swashbuckling fiction type storyline I suggest looking at Blackbeard: Terror at Sea. It is narrated by Hands as if he wrote Blackbeards memoirs (not sure how accurate that is) and much better acting, with character focus and realistic storyline all round. It is more documentary style with the narration this way. Some of the music, especially at the beginning, is a little annoying with the narration, but maybe it was a poor audio version I watched, but when that drops off and they really get into the story.

Blackbeard is certainly a character you love to hate and hate to love.

This movie is LOOSELY based on the actual history of Blackbeard. Some of the events that happen in the movie are taken right from history, even if they are set in a different location. Either way, it's very entertaining. The main plot as well as the sub-plots offer excitement and intrigue, as well as romance. The fight scenes are well done and the whole story in general seemed plausible enough to me. My husband usually doesn't like historical movies but he said this one kept him on the edge of his seat. The one complaint I had is that some of the scenes are shot in dark locations and it makes it very hard to see on screen. I understand that they were trying to keep it as real as possible, but it does no good when you can't even tell what's going on.

RELEASED IN 2005 and directed by Kevin Connor, "Blackbeard" is a two-part TV film from Hallmark loosely based on the exploits of the infamous pirate Edward Teach, better known as Blackbeard (born circa 1680 and died November 22, 1718).

Although "Blackbeard" features real-life people and other items, like the ship Queen Anne's Revenge and Blackbeard's relationship with the governor, the story is essentially fictional. Those knowledgeable about the life of Blackbeard should know this up front otherwise it will ruin their experience. Still, even though this is a fictional story, the film IS realistic in its presentation of the basic Caribbean pirate lifestyle. Not to mention, it successfully captures the spirit of Blackbeard.

One thing that turns me off to pirate flicks like "Pirates of the Caribbean" (all of them) and "Cutthroat Island" (1995) is that they feature such a goofy, unbelievable vibe that the viewer can't take the stories seriously for more than a few moments. Well, you don't have to worry about that with "Blackbeard" because, again, this is a believable portrayal of the pirate lifestyle. The film certainly helps the viewer catch a glimpse of what it must have been like to be a pirate back in that era, the 1600s-1700s.

In regards to the historical inaccuracies of the story, how much do we really know about Blackbeard and the many adventures he experienced? Did he have a personal scribe with him detailing every detail of his life and misadventures? Of course not. The story in "Blackbeard" features events that very well COULD have happened to him and other pirates of the era. In light of all this, I don't get the rigid criticisms about the supposed lack of historical accuracy. Besides, the overrated "Braveheart" (1995) is hailed as a masterpiece, but is it historically accurate? Please (Mel Gibson portrayed Wallace as the next thing to Jesus Christ himself).

Although this is a TV flick with a small budget compared to major theatrical releases, it is comparable in spirit to films like "Last of the Mohicans" (1992) and "The Count of Monte Cristo" (2002). So if you enjoy adventure movies like these you'll likely appreciate "Blackbeard," as long as you can handle the TV budget.

Regarding the major characters, Angus Macfadyen does a good job in bringing Blackbeard to life; Richard Chamberlain is effective as the foppish aristocratic villain; Mark Umbers is a great masculine and noble protagonist; and Jessica Chastain is a fine choice as the adopted daughter of the governor of New Providence (Chamberlin).

Redheaded Jessica certainly attractive but not drop-dead gorgeous, which isn't a problem since these types of women almost always outshine the ultra-hot babes anyway (less outward beauty often creates greater inward beauty, although there are exceptions). In the second half of the film there are scenes where Blackbeard & his motley crew have Jessica captive as they camp in the jungle and there are some shots of Jessica that are absolutely stunning. Somehow the jungle brings out her enchanting beauty.

The story takes place in the Caribbean but the film was shot in Thailand. Although I would have preferred the real Caribbean, these locations are certainly magnificent. It's just that the real New Providence isn't hilly as depicted. Also, there weren't any Asian people living in the West Indies during that time period, general speaking.

BOTTOM LINE: If you're in the mood for a realistic pirate adventure and don't mind the limitations of TV productions, you can't go wrong with "Blackbeard." If you want pirates, Caribbean Islands, the Royal Navy, hidden treasures, corrupt officials, jungle adventure, ship battles, caves, castaways and damsels you can't go wrong with "Blackbeard." It's the best pirate film I've seen (not that I've seen many) and is superior to goofy fantasy dreck like "Pirates of the Caribbean," not to mention more compelling than "Master and Commander" (2003), although it's nowhere near as good as "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962) or "The Bounty" (1984).

THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 49 minutes (both parts combined). WRITER: Bryce Zabel.

GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

Judging by some of the reviews I read here, I was expecting this movie to be a cross between The Love Boat and my high school drama project. Arrrr, says I, I love a good trainwreck of a flick! So I hunkered down ready to laugh my avast off.

What a letdown, the movie was actually pretty fun. Most notable is the lush scenery (filmed in Thailand) full of fantasy-like seascapes and majestic islands. Scenes of the town, New Providence, were convincing, and I never noticed any obvious cgi trickery (I think they used old school matte paintings for most of these effects). Battle scenes on the high seas were surprisingly well done. Swordfights were ok except for the ole Shakespearean sword-under-the-arm gags, but actually I came to prefer that sort of violence rather than fake slasher effects.

Now on to the story. Blackbeard. Pirate. That's all you need to know. For those of you expecting a historically accurate biographical lesson, stick to your books. The story of any personage from the 17th-18th century is going to be largely improvised simply because all we have comes from a handful of witness accounts and rumors of the day. So just sit back and have fun.

Angus Mcfayden does a great pirate, ruthless and cruel but with a unique charm that makes you see him as possibly the protagonist. However, the intended protagonist is the British Lieutenant Robert Maynard (played by Mark Umbers), a dashing hero straight out of Errol Flynn's playbook. My cynicism prevented me from accepting him at first, but he grew on me.

Similarly, the romance between Maynard and Charlotte (Jessica Chastain) might be hard for cynics to swallow, but the deliberately over-the-top performance of Richard Chamberlain as Charlotte's conniving patron keeps us pleasantly distracted. I say "deliberately over-the-top" because in the bonus interview, Richard Chamberlain talks about how he decided to have some fun with the role, and he certainly did. The character becomes almost a parody of British gentry which is perfectly fitting, since the character is a total hypocrite. I thought Richard Chamberlain was the most fun to watch.

On all counts, the acting was really good if you consider that each character is an extreme personification of a stereotype. Blackbeard the rogue, Maynard the boyscout, The Governor (Chamberlain) the high class hypocrite, and Charlotte the oppressed daughter. Beginning with these stereotypes we begin to see that the filmmakers were weaving some complex parallels if you're paying attention.

Blackbeard & the Governor are both villains but from vastly different social strata. The contrast, especially when they meet, is riveting. Maynard and Charlotte, likewise, are from different social standings: Maynard a hardened soldier and Charlotte a rich heiress, and yet they both represent the common good.

While parts of the story are predictable, that's not a bad thing. After all, Pirates are predictable, right? They break things and steal stuff. That said, just sit back and enjoy the voyage.

I didn't realize until caught "Captain Blood" on TCM last night and found myself listening to the same exact lines. I thought to myself..I swear I saw this moving before in color;then I realized when I researched on IMDb that it was Black Beard I watched. I was disappointed that IMDb didn't point out it was a remake of Captain Blood. The writer's for Black Beard didn't go far for lines they literally took lines from the classic original "Captain Blood". Watch Captain Blood. What is wrong with this world. No imagination at all. Every movie you watch these days is a remake of an original. Sometimes that remake it over and over again. We really need to start giving credit where credit is due. Especially when these movies are being nominated for awards and the writers are copying them.