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.

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.

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.