Blackbeard

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)

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.

I don't claim to be an expert on Blackbeard, in fact like many of us I really have just a basic understanding of who he was. Not a passing understanding mind you, that would be basically be knowing that he was a pirate and maybe knowing his real name was Edward Teach. A basic understanding would mean knowing the name of the ship he's associated with the most (Queen Anne's Revenge, which was a French ship he captured and renamed), he's associated with the then English colony of North Carolina among other places, that the governor of the colony of Virginia sent Maynard after him because the governor of NC was to friendly with him. Things of that nature.

Now knowing these things, when I saw ads for this movie I was eagerly anticipating this movie. I knew it wasn't going to stick strictly to the facts, what historical movie does? But I expected them to be much more of a guideline than what was presented. Yet for the most part the facts were thrown out the window to present us with a movie that should have been called "The Hunt for Kidd's Treasure." Because that's really what this movie was about, finding Captain Kidd's treasure.

In that they could have used practically any pirate to be alive at any point after Kidd's death. Not only that, they could have created a pirate or said forget the pirates and just use anyone wishing to find the treasure. For that matter they could have set it at just about any time after his death, even today. But by using Blackbeard they ensured there would be a built in audience.

As a movie by itself, if one heavily ignores the director and screenwriter playing fast and loose with history, it's mildly entertaining. The intrigue coming in two ways, firstly Blackbeard and Maynard's interaction in searching for the treasure together, secondly the corrupt governor of an apparent colony in the Caribbean as he looks to hide his truth from his adopted daughter and his citizens. Maynard apparently is sent to deal with Blackbeard by someone else entirely and essentially ends up shanghaied into the pirate's crew, where he hides his real nature, and rather successfully until the time comes for him to save some folks. Meanwhile, the governor and his essentially second in command have been working with pirates for a while now and are willing to team up with Blackbeard so as to get their share of his prizes. Unfortunately for them his adopted daughter falls for Maynard and becomes suspicious of what they are up too.

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.

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.