Mary McGlasson: The Column, Part 113
Is there anything more useless in the land of fiction than an unnecessary sequel?
This came to mind recently when, in a fit of needing something relatively mindless to watch during living-room work, I popped "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" into my DVD player.
It was loaned to me a few months ago, and I figured I should at least try to watch it again. Plus, I was in the mood for impossible sword fights and Johnny Depp.
And that's what I got ... along with a boatload of ho-hum movie.
In re-watching "At World's End" I remembered its ability to underwhelm. There were some fun moments, granted, and the last 45 minutes were all breathless action, but the best that could be said was that it was better than the second chapter, "Dead Man's Chest."
If you've seen that movie, you know this is faint praise, indeed.
Not for the first time, I then pondered the problem of unnecessary sequels.
Some movies are built for sequels: We live in the age of the blockbuster, and a number in the title is commonplace. Sometimes it's a Roman numeral, sometimes Arabic - or they eschew numerics altogether and allow their franchise to "return" or, as with "Star Wars" or "Pirates," give them entirely different names altogether.
<table width="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="right">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="1"><span class="cutline"> </span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
While there are certainly examples where a sequel can match or even surpass the original (like "The Godfather II," "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Breakin' 2: Electric Bugaloo"), for the most part, sequels disappoint. It's a fact.
However, there is something even worse than a disappointing sequel, and that is a sequel that is apparently doing its best to ruin everything accomplished in the first film.
I believe these are sequels that would never have been made without (and were quite likely unplanned before) the box-office success of the original film - box-office success that was a surprise of some sort.
In capitalizing on this, these sequels generally attempt to add a complex mythology to those first films to "deepen" the story but only muddy everything that made the original so ... well, original in the first place - and audiences and critics alike noticed.
My primary targets here are "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" and "The Matrix," both of which are among the best in their respective genres (and among my personal favorites).
(NOTE: "Highlander" could also be considered plagued with unnecessary sequels - not to mention a terrible TV series - and I was tempted to discuss "Star Wars" for the egregious prequels to the original trilogy ... but certain aspects of "Revenge of the Sith" at least attempted to make up for the failings of the first two.)
Let's start with "The Matrix."
(WARNING: Here there be a few spoilers. Abandon all hope of not knowing how these films end, ye who read further.)
In the beginning, there was the simple yet visually stunning hero's journey of one Mr. Anderson, a computer hacker who has stumbled onto a mystery called the Matrix.
Once he takes the red pill, we're hooked. We're ready to believe that the world we know is a virtual prison, and we cheer when even in techno-land, love conquers all. "The Matrix" ends on a perfect note of hope, excitement and sheer coolness.
But ... it didn't end.
The original movie had very big philosophical ideas, but was very simple in execution.
However, the world outside the Matrix and logic-defying machinations of the human-like programs within the Matrix take over the story in "Reloaded" and "Revolutions," and bog down what used to be the incredibly cool adventures of a Christ-like savior in black shades who knows kung fu.
A few intriguing ideas (like werewolves and ghosts being remnants of earlier versions of the Matrix) and cool special effects do not make up for five hours of overly serious exposition (thanks, Morpheus) and elaborately CGIed fight scenes created solely to appease the fans and to occupy a hero for whom the filmmakers had to scramble to find challenges.
If you've established a character who can do anything in the world you've created, chances are you're limited in terms of plausible conflict.
On a sidenote, I have to say that "The Animatrix" had the right idea in focusing on stories of others in the Matrix, rather than Neo. As far as I'm concerned, his story ended when he flew off from that phone booth - great Superman's ghost! - at the end of the first movie.
Now, bring me that horizon: Let's talk pirates.
"The Curse of the Black Pearl," against all odds, was the antithesis of your average Disney "let's make a movie off one of our popular attractions" flick:
It was a slam-bang and quite slyly funny pirate/action movie (with undead pirates!) that was a surprising critical hit and introduced Captain Jack Sparrow to the world.
There were some pacing problems in the middle, granted - it was just too long - but I honestly didn't mind in the face of some of the best sword fights since Errol Flynn, the witty dialogue, great set pieces, and amazing special effects.
I think you get the point: I liked it. So did most of the rest of the world.
Hopes were high for the second and third movies, but watching "Dead Man's Chest" was an exercise in patience. The storylines were suddenly everywhere: Will Turner's father, Jack's mysterious compass, Elizabeth Swann's desire to become a pirate (suddenly she's a swordswoman?) ... and then you add a ship full of fish-men and a slew of East India Company bad guys straight from the Uptight British Soldier closet ... and the seas become a bit cluttered.
"At World's End" complicated everything still further, bringing in the rest of the pirate universe (plus the never-before-mentioned "nine pirate lords") and the entire British Navy for the final confrontation - although only two ships actually fight - and a goddess in human form who consumes a lot of screen time but it seems was only in the movie to create the giant whirlpool at the end.
The tangled stories and excessive complications make you yearn for the original, with its cheeky wit and simple storylines that allowed the adventure at its heart to shine.
Like the "Matrix" sequels, it seems the filmmakers thought they had to deliver "more."
But this is the folly of excess: Sometimes "more" isn't better; instead, it's far too much.
Mary McGlasson can be reached at news@olneydailymail.com.