Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge Film Review Analysis


The film review has a 25:75 image to text ratio. The image itself is a screenshot from the film, giving the audience a clearer insight into the narrative of the film as well as into the characters. The characters are dressed in all black from which the audience can depict that they are the villains of the film as well as looking in-human, reinforcing the action fantasy genre. The background of the image highlights to the audience that the characters are secluded due to them being the only ones on the beach. It also reinforces the pirate plot as it is a typical location that the audience would expect.

The title is written in sans-serif bold black typography as well as the information section being written in sans-serif which makes them stand out and seem more factual. The review is written in serif typography, making the review seem more important and creative.

The information about the film is separated from the review by a bold black line. This section includes the star rating, release date, certificate rating, length, director, cast and the plot to give the audience an even clearer insight into the narrative. This information results in the audience being able to make their own decision about whether this would be a film that they would enjoy and like to watch.

The article is laid out in two columns with flush left which makes the article easier to read and also make it look like there’s less to read, resulting in the audience being more willing to take time out of their busy daily lives to read the article quickly.

The first three words of the article are written in capitalisation, which grabs the audience’s attention as the writer has intended for the reader to feel that they are being shouted at. A metaphor is used immediately in the review “THEME-PARK RIDES are great fun, but go around again and it’s always the same ride”, it highlights the writers negative opinion about the film and illustrates to the audience that if they’ve seen the previous films then they will be able to predict what happens in this film, especially as it is a ‘remake’ of the first film. The negative review continues as the writer suggests that the audience won’t enjoy the film as much as the previous ones as it’s “the same ride. But it’s not nearly as fun this time”. So far the audience will be really put off from watching this film even if they enjoyed the last few as it’s unoriginal and predictable. However, the writer does state a positive about the film but in a condescending tone, “there’s some innovation”.

The film is compared to another film (Fast and Furious) to give the audience a clearer idea and even a visual aid of what happens in an action-packed scene in the film, “Another outdoes the Fast & Furious gag of cars dragging a bank safe by having a horse-drawn carriage tow an entire bank.” The italics of ‘an entire bank‘  emphases the word “entire”, highlighting how unrealistic this scene is.

The writer uses a play on words when reviewing the CGI used in the film, “sense-assaulting CGI floods in and visual elegance gets lost at sea” which engages the audience.

The writer also reviews the actors and characters in the film, giving the film an all round “poor” 2 star rating as it’s not even clear why they needed Wenham’s character at all” which he reinforces using a pull quote from the film which the character states about helping and being a big role, which the writer believes he doesn’t fulfil.

Furthermore the use of the adverb “then there’s” highlights that there is a whole list of issues with the film and even making the audience believe that the writer is getting ‘fed up’ of having to write so much about the film that’s wrong and disappointing. It also illustrates that the film isn’t worth while to watch and is actually “infuriating” to watch. Colloquial language is used to highlight the confusion that the film has caused to its audience due to the plot not making sense which is reinforced with a pull quote, “He’s given away the compass! We are free!’ Huh?’.

The writer finally uses sarcasm and rhetorical questions to convey how disappointing and pointless the ending was “Even wonder why he’s called ‘Sparrow’? Us neither”, as well as the use of “horribly un-canny valley de-aging CGI work on Depp’s face”.

Finally the overall verdict is negative as there’s “little of that film’s spark or spirit”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s