When Pirates came out in 1986, critics panned it and it was a commercial failure. Much like What?, it's an unusual movie for Roman Polanski. He's not a filmmaker immediately associated with humor, except in a marginal way - the black humor in a crime movie like Cul-de-sac, or a parody of the vampire movie in The Fearless Vampire Killers. Pirates is too over-the-top and perhaps too late in history to have an impact. After all, when The Fearless Vampire Killers came out, the Hammer Studios were still cranking out awful horror movies worthy of a parody. But by 1986 who remembered or cared about the Errol Flynn movies that Pirates so clearly and lovingly mocks, updates and pays homage to?

What I found fascinating about this movie was that Polanski wasn't just trying to return to the good old days of romantic pirates. Oh no, his pirates are rude, cruel, sadistic criminals. And if they perform dashing feat, it's to rob gold-made thrones stolen from tropical tribes and not to save romantic interests. In every genre he worked in, Polanski always brought realism, whether it be psychological, or just showing a protagonist wear a bandage on his face for days after having it slashed by a knife.

It's this type of realism that Polanski brings to Pirates. He mixes the old romantic view with the cruel reality. As the movie begins, Captain Red (played by a hilarious Walter Matthau), contemplates eating Frog, his servant. They're on a raft, without food or water. For Red this is natural, it's survival, the strongest kills the weakest. And it sets the type of black humor the movie will have.

In spite of the awful reviews this movie gets, I consider Pirates a very well-made and well-acted movie. Walter Matthau steals the show as Captain Red: he's cunning, vicious, violent, manipulative, always full of himself. The character is so larger than life that he can only be played for laughs, and Matthau understands this.

The movie was nominated for an Oscar for its costume design, which deserved - the costumes are exuberant, colorful, inventive. But where is recognition for its use of make-up, or for the cinematography, or art direction. Visually speaking, this movie was splendid.

The movie is perhaps longer than it had to be, and the fact that its characters have few redeeming traits may upset some people looking for a good family movie with a happy ending. But people who watch it without preconceived ideas may be surprised and get into the spirit of the movie's absurdity.

Back when I was a kid, this was one of the movies we taped from TV and watched several times. Turns out it's so obscure the imdb search function doesn't even turn it up when you write the exact title..

As an adult, I learned that the critics hated it for being messy, jumbled, and for Polanski's morbid sense of humor. This didn't really surprise me - as a kid I could never get a grasp of the plot, but I remembered the rat dinner scene *very* well, and I didn't laugh.

Rewatching it as an adult, I agree it's messy and has tonal issues. Is it an action/adventure movie, a light comedy, or a black comedy? There's a kind of nihilism to it, but then there's also a lot of innocent slapstick. Either way the sets and costumes remain fantastic, the acting is uniformly excellent (with one important exception), and there are a lot of great details, especially in the Captain's interaction with other characters, that I didn't discover before. I also enjoy the score.

However, another thing that strikes me as an adult, is exactly how terrible Cris Campion's performance as the Frog is. The man doesn't act. He has this sad-eyed/gloomy/tired look that you sometimes think is his acting, but then you realize he has that same expression all throughout the movie! And with his role being so central, and the others acting so well, he really stands out. And it really hurts the movie, not least the love story. (Except the moment when they kiss under that bed. I...like that moment.) I realize it was Campion's first movie, and that's probably why, but what was Polanski thinking, casting a newcomer in a lead role like that?

Come to think of it, it reminds me of Orlando Bloom's casting in the equivalent "passionate lover" role in Pirates of the Caribbean. They hadn't realized yet what a terrible actor he is, because as Legolas he was meant to be stone-faced. I'm not sure who was worse... Maybe Campion.

One more thing: Anyone else find the "eating the Frog" scene ridiculous? Yes you'd feel thirsty, but the hunger dulls after a while of starving, and even if you felt the hunger, there's no way you'd have the energy to chase someone like that after days (weeks?) on a raft. You'd be exhausted from the sun.

Oh well. It was fun to see the movie again.