Blackbeard

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.

The movie is set in the early part of the 18th century. However, when they site a French ship early in the story, it is flying the blue, white, and red flag of modern France which did not come into existence until the French Revolution some 75 years later.

It would also help if there was more character development. For example, other than duty, it is not clear what is motivating the hero to undertake the mission which serves as the basis upon which the story is built.

The settings, which I understand were built in Thailand, are also well constructed and believable as being in the Bahama Islands almost 300 years ago and provide good backgrounds for the scenes.

The acting and filming were quite good, however the historical facts were quite distorted. Pirates are portrayed as as evil villains as they are in this film however as in the case of Captain James Kidd they were probably pawns of the wealthy. Maybe future serious pirate movies could address the fact that most pirates were either government assisted employees or scapegoats for a corrupt society. Personally I liked Errol Flynn better, unbelievable but more swashbuckling. The person who portrays Blackbeard in this film (McFayden)is a very good actor but does not come across as the strange person that history suggests he was, for example the smoking beard.Finally it was too long and in parts disjointed.

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.

Based on the descriptions appearing on the front and back cover of the movie case, one would expect this movie to chronicle the life and times of Blackbeard. Instead the movie focuses more on a fictional love story than the historical figure for which it is titled.

Blackbeard's more notable conquests and actions are not even eluded to. One would think given 169 minutes they might have squeezed in a little something more. His reputation with no specifics is only referenced.

This film unfortunately is primarily focused on a fictional love story. There are far more elements of fiction than fact in this film.

In short, much like judging a book by it's cover, do not buy/view this movie based on it's box.