I loved it. I thought it was a bit heavy on the first movie references and maybe went for the comedy a little hard, but that's Pirates, and it was all great anyway.
I thought the CGI was fantastic, and in general the story was really good. I loved the sword fight on the waterwheel. And the fact that they did a lot of downplaying of the romance angle, especially considering how long the movie was.
I LOVE the last 15 minutes of the movie. Did anyone have Sarlacc Pit flashbacks when the Kraken appeared to Jack at the end? It was like a watery version.
I didn't guess that Barbossa would be at the end, I thought those boots were going to be Jack Sparrow's father actually, as a friend of mine confirmed that he WILL be in the third movie. But that was just as cool.
Also, for anyone wondering about the scene after the credits, it's only 15 seconds long, and it's of the dog as the new leader of those crazy amazon guys. It's funny and cute, but not earth shattering.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought this review was rather unfair. The movie didn't feel long to me at all. King Kong on the other hand felt like sleep therapy it dragged on for so long with useless plot feints.
I think it pushed at a steady pace and never got boring, and the plot was perfectly understandable. Maybe the guy just isn't a fan?
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I enjoyed it thouroughly, although I was a little disappointed with the ending as I bet my friend that no one would die. The only time I checked my watch was at the very end when they were in that woman's house, because I thought there would be one last hurrah to save Jack. I shoulda have known, however, that there would be a huge cliffhanger.
I have to agree, I loved the scene with the waterwheel. It was amazing. I just want to buy that movie to watch that scene over and over again.
Also, I too thought that the boots were going to be Keith Richards. I was a little disappointed, but I'm glad that Barbossa is back. And the next movie comes out next summer, so we don't really have to wait that long.
Oh, and speaking of Star Wars references, they totally pulled a Han Solo on us. They "killed" off a main character only to have him revived at the beginning of the next film to go off on a grand adventure.
Long live Jack Sparrow!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No one did die. Heck, there were more living characters at the end of this movie than when it started.
If the Kraken is the Sarlacc Pit, Jack Sparrow is Boba Fett (imagine what would come of THAT union), he'll be back.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I freaking loved Norrington in this movie. He was a stuck up little prig in the last one, but he was much more fun this time around. And Bennet is easier to hate.
I liked Bootstrap Bill, too.
And Barbossa! Awesome.
It's just too bad that Will is going to be all angst ridden and tortured next movie, cause he was more fun this time around too.
Ni!
Posted by ailurophobic (Member # 8343) on :
I feel awful. I'm one of the only people I've talked to who didn't enjoy the movie at all. It was too much fanservice: a few things worked in the first installment, and instead of coming up with anything new, the script writers relied on countless allusions to the first film.
And, um, the 'sword' innuendo was cute the -first- time.
I think it was an alright movie, but it doesn't stand up to the first at all. Curse of the Black Pearl was a thrill ride, with charming dialogue and lovable, fresh characters. Dead Man's Chest seemed so heavy and couldn't decide if it wanted to wax poetic or just be silly.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
For a peek at PotC 3 (including confirmation that Jack -will- be back) view the following production photo... Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by ailurophobic: I feel awful. I'm one of the only people I've talked to
...
You talk to yourself about movies? Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Man.
The 1:55 PM showing was packed solid! The line extended into the food court and outside the mall!
This film is going to make huge piles of money. No question.
I mostly agree with OSC's review, though I'll, add this:
I liked how this movie clarified something that struck me in the first film- Elizabeth is the one with true pirate tendencies. Not Will. Elizabeth is the one who lies, cheats, threatens, steals...
That was all suggested in the first film, but buried under the "Will's father was a pirate, so he feels guilt" sub-plot. Happily, that's dropped.
I find Elizabeth's ruthless streak far more interesting than Will's angst, so I'm totally okay with that. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess my only complaint about his review was that he made too big a deal about the fact that the movie ends in a cliffhanger? So what? No one complained about waiting 2 years to see the end of the LOTR trilogy from its start, or paying for TWO more tickets to see it, and they were also longer. What's the big deal? Movies end in cliffhangers. It's not like they made a 6 hour movie and then just stopped the film at 3 hrs. It DID have an ending.
And I did notice that it was Bill Nighy as Davy Jones, solely from his performance on Love, Actually. But I thought it was fantastic, his voice especially was great, along with his facial mannerisms.
I think they might have overplayed some of the gags from the first movie, but I still love them, so it didn't bother me.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
It was easily one of the better sequels out there. However, I'm already having huge doubts about the third one primarily based upon the aforelinked picture of Jack Sparrow. All in all, very entertaining, great gags, and quotable. Full recommendations from me.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Oh my gosh… I just got back from seeing it. Goodness…. Talk about long. Confusing in many spots and so many what the heck things. For example, why would she think the monster was coming for Jack? He was off the ship when it first attacked. Makes no sense. What was the point of the dirt in the jar if that didn’t put him on land? What was up with the girl in the beginning? I really thought they were trying to throw the barrels into the mouth of the beast to blow them up, not hurt more tentacles. There were so many times I was just like why on earth would someone do that parts. Things just didn’t click. They could have cut a ton out. It just didn’t flow well. Yes there were funny parts and some neat special effects. But other then that. Two thumbs down.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Watch it again, Jay. The black spot on Jack's hand was how the monster tracked them. It went away when he struck a deal with DJ, but when DJ realized it was a delaying tactic he brought the black spot back.
DJ couldn't touch land for another ten years, so if the heart was in the jar it was safe from him.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I do have to agree with Jay that Keira Knightley in the rain didn't make a lot of sense to me. I could see a party got rained out but it was like G&R's November Rain. I knew something bad happened, but until just now, I didn't realize Will hadn't shown up and she thought she'd been jilted. That does help explain her behavior at the end. Even though she logically knew Will hadn't abandoned her, she still felt like he wasn't there when he was supposed to be.
I'm also not sure why we put the heart in the jar if it stayed there about 30 seconds or how the Commodore figured it all out after seeing some dirt in a pirates longboat on a sandy beach. He's a better man than I.
And I'll second him on the barrels. We needed large explosives to take out a couple tentacles? And it conveniently gave them time to get away in a rather slow and drawn out escape, I might add.
Overall, it was a cool but silly movie. And it didn't resonate with me. It was a fun evening, but I doubt I'll see it again.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I liked it. I thought it was very good.
I recognise those people who thought that the comedy/allusions were heavy- they were. However, most of the time, I thought it worked. Pirates of the Caribbean is never supposed to be deep and serious, it's supposed to be a swashbuckling movie, and I think they just went no holds barred on this one. If someone said 'Hey, I just had a wacky idea', it went in. Like the water wheel on the ruined house/mill; I saw that wheel and knew that it was going to be important. You get the hang of the brand of comedy after awhile.
I liked the way it was chocabloc full of jokes, so many that lots of them were lost on the first viewing. "Put your backs into it like you're getting paid for it!" was one.
Anything was fair game for an amusing scene, and I think that you don't often see this kind of comedy that doesn't rely on fart jokes but is still physical and straight forward in a shameless kind of way. Suitable for children and adults and everyone.
I think they could get away with the allusions because the other movie was 3 years ago (which is a while) and has become very familiar. Yes, some were a little awkward, but I don't think it was
Jay and AvidReader, and others, the movie is not supposed to be taken as seriously as you're taking it. It is supposed to be quite silly.
At the same time, however, I think they managed to make it interesting and fast paced, and add a little bit of "uh oh" every so often to keep you on your toes.
All in all the only quibble I had with the movie was that it wasn't as neat as the first. It was more rollicking, more sprawling, more full, more complicated (we were in three or four different places all the time). I can't decide if the haphazardness adds or takes away from the movie. I think I'm going to have to see it again to decide.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I enjoyed it. It was a fun movie. I did think some of CGI of Davy Jone's crew was a bit jerky, but all in all, the effects were good.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I didn't think it was long at all. I only realized the end was near when that lady-in-the-hut (Diodoma?) said "The World's End," which I knew was the title of the next movie.
And BARBOSSA!!!!!! I can't come up with enough awesome things to say about the fact that Barbossa's back! I nearly had a heart attack when he walked down those stairs - and I, too, thought it would be Captain Jack.
Favourite musical moment: the swinging cages. Posted by Solo Wing Pixy (Member # 9489) on :
I thought it was an awesome sequel. Not too long at all in my opinion; never once crossed my mind while watching it. One of my favorite things had to be Jack's entrance, coming out of the coffin--definitely rivals his Pirates 1 entrance. And the water-wheel fight of course, as well as the undead monkey. "Where's that monkey, I need to shoot something." Haha
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It only seemed to drag once to me, when they were doing some ship stuff with the rigging and all that and I wondered why they chose that moment to do a rope pulling montage. Killed the momentum a bit, but it picked up again fast enough.
I too loved the beginning, and the swinging cages. And I loved Barbossa with the apple.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I thought this review was rather unfair. The movie didn't feel long to me at all. King Kong on the other hand felt like sleep therapy it dragged on for so long with useless plot feints.
I think it pushed at a steady pace and never got boring, and the plot was perfectly understandable. Maybe the guy just isn't a fan?
He didn't like the first movie either. I think he's just not that into pirates.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
So... any theories on Barbosa?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, it seems like anyone dead is pretty much fair game to be brought back to life by some twist of fate (such as your friends and enemies going to the "ends of the earth") so... why not?
Perhaps the witch doctor lady magicked him back.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
There was a shot of a pair of boots in her house as the monkey scurried away. The question is if he was still dead at that point.
Anyone else notice that the music box in her house that was the same as Davy Jones's? So was she his love?
Ni!
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
As soon as I saw that the monkey was still cursed I knew that Barbarossa had managed to nick a coin or that the monkey had brought him one to 'curse him' back to unlife. It was obvious.
As for the plot of the next movie, I have had no time to formulate it, Lady Swan has to decide whether to let Will fester in angst over her kiss, or loose his good impression of her over her tricking Jack. However with Jack's track record this movie he got of light. One wonders why he did not strike out for Davy Jones Heart right away after the last movie, or plunder some towns and retire before time was up.
It would have been a better movie if Jack was a more convincing plunderer, a ship, a town, and couple run ins with the Royal Navy all in a flash montage might have made it more interesting. It also might have added credit to the arrest of Will.
BC
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
All I want is more Norrington. Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Me too, Carrie, I loved him in this movie! He's gonna be all poncy again in the next one, though.
Ni!
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I totally agree that Jack didn't have an opportunity to display his piratey awesomeness. If they had showed anything--a brief scene at the beginning of a ship that had been brilliantly preyed upon by the Pearl, and Beckett (Beckett? whatever. Mr. Collins. the bad English guy.) being furious--that would have been an improvement. I thought this movie lacked the brilliant gorgeous chicanery bits that the first one had (nothing to rival Jack's delightful escape scene at the beginning), and the truly excellent sword-fights (the wheel made me dizzy and I couldn't watch). The loss of Geoffrey Rush was keenly felt, though Bill Nighy was, as is his wont, fantastic.
But I liked it. Elizabeth was beautifully ruthless. I loved the look Jack gave her when she chained him to the ship--like if he hadn't been all chained up and pressed for time he would have taken her in manly fashion right there on the deck. And I'm glad we finally acknowledged that Elizabeth is the piratey pirate girl we always knew she was. And I'm glad Jack got his hat back.
Jen
(I died a little inside when he said, "It's only a ship, mate.")
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I was really disappointed
I thought it was really long, it dragged, there were no fun new quotes, only riffs on the old ones. There was too much CGI, too much action and not enough romance. And they never even dealt with Will seeing Elizabeth kiss Jack Sparrow! I mean, cliffhanger okay, but wtf?!?
I thought it felt a lot like the Empire Strikes Back -- darker, longer, obviously with the cliffhanger -- but I didn't come away with the same satisfaction as I did after I saw tESB for the first time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You thought it was DARKER than Empire Strikes Back? Or like ESB it was darker than the first movie?
I didn't notice that the music box at the crazy lady's hut was the same as Jones'. I'll have to double check that next time I see it.
I AM curious as to how Barbossa got back. I don't think he was just magicked back to life, but then, I also don't think that Jack will die. I think he will be captured by the Kraken whole and brought to the ends of the Earth for some reason or another. So I don't think it's a matter of reanimating the dead. Barbossa couldn't have stolen a coin, because when he was shot, he really was alive, hence the blood. I'd say there's a high probability of the monkey having brought him a coin, but maybe there's a different answer.
For all we know, Barbossa made his own deal with Davy Jones that we don't know of, and that is why he is helping them to find Jack and the heart. Actually that makes good sense, why else would he be helping them? Out of the goodness of his own heart? He hates Jack, and them, they undid all his plans.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
No great quotes??!! Did you see the same film I did.
- Bang "Look an undead monkey"
That has to be worth a chuckle.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Full fathom five thy father lies; Of his bones are coral made; Those are pearls that were his eyes; Nothing of him that does fade, But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange."
One of my pet peeves is the use of the phrase "sea change." I gotta wonder if the crew of the Flying Dutchman were a reference to this passage.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I enjoyed it for a first time through, but that movie has 12% rewatchability.
Movies have tension and then release, much like a good piece of music.
But like the musical soundtrack in this movie, there's no release. It is a constant bombardment of music. Constant pirate trumpeting, Gladiator-rehashing I might add, with several scenes that could have become great turning points but never do.
Bombastic brass themes and pounding drums a movie does not make, and in this films case it was almost screaming "We're compensating for something!".
That's why some reviewers complain that it's too long. It could be the running time but I'd hazard to say that the reviewers just couldn't sit through over 3 hours of blaring music and 4+ story climaxes that happen with machine gun rapidity, with no release in between said climaxes because there's a constant musical accompaniment that injects false hype into just about everything.
Less is more.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I liked a lot of the music, though I really wish they could have come up with something new other than so much rehashing of the first movie. Main theme repeats are perfectly alright, but they mimicked or downright replayed way too much music from the first movie.
And the first movie sounded too much like Gladiator to begin with.
But I don't think the music as a whole was overcompensating for the movie, I think it complemented it just fine, I only wished for something new. I expect it will have to be redone when they do the third movie, as, well, they won't really be in the Caribbean anymore.
I also thought that it had a lot of great lines. Many of them having to do with the undead monkey. But there was other stuff.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Plus, there is the thumping. The thump, thump, of the canibals drums, Davey Jones walk, Davey Jones's heart, Will's knife into the board at the end of the movie. It was a motif they literally beat into us.
Yes it was a tad long. Most of the canibal segments could have been removed. The action sequences were fun, but outdone by the waterwheel battle. They only added a bit to the plot--how will and the other two joined the crew, and that could have been taken care of without Jack's cabob bit. With that fluff gone, the rest of the movie would have been swifter, and the end of the water wheel bit would not have been--"Didn't we just do this with a ball?"
And I said after the first movie--Elizabet is the greatest pirate ever.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have to say, for people supposed to be good with swords, that lot can fence (well, bang their swords together in an amusing fashion, anyway) for an amazingly long time without anyone getting killed. Dudes, the point is not to make a lot of metal-on-metal noise, it is to put your point in the other guy's throat. The point, people; sod the edge, it only wounds.
Apart from that, I liked it quite a lot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Killjoy.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I thought it was darker than the first one, like ESB was darker than A New Hope.
Not that Pirates was darker than Empire. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ahh, okay.
I thought that's what you meant, but I was all ready to be flabbergasted if it wasn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I absolutely hated that Will condemned the English ship to the Kraken. I know he realized it too late, but I didn't enjoy the sequence at all. For the movie to remain light and funny, you had to not care that a ship of innocent bystanders as destroyed. If we do care, then there's no resolution - one throway line, and everyone moves on to more funny antics.
Oh my stars, I thought it was long. There was no actual story. The twenty-minute, racist sequence with the villagers existed in order to make the Jack-kabob joke, and it wasn't worth it.
I agree - zero rewatchability. It was beautiful and the acting was good, so I don't regret seeing it this time, but I can't imagine voluntarily watching it again.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I can. But I could watch it again and again just for the visual. They have to get an Oscar nom for the makeup. It was very difficult to tell which parts were practical effects and which were CGI in Davey Jones's case, at least.
But all that aside, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. Of course, I went into the first one expecting absolutely nothing from it (inspired by an amusement park ride, after all) and was very pleasantly surprised. I went into this one a bit more excited but I wasn't disappointed. I actually want to watch it again just to pick up any little things I missed the first time around.
I see no one has mentioned the various items Jack stole off the witch's table when no one was looking. I wonder if some of those might come into play in the next movie. Maybe something there helps him survive the Kraken mauling.
I did notice the matching music boxes (lockets?), and I'll be surprised if the witch doesn't turn out to be DJ's lost love.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I got a little bored. The water wheel fight scene was cool, but the saving grace of the movie for me was Elizabeth's crush on Jack. I didn't see it coming. Maybe I wasn't paying attention. Maybe I don't know all of the cliches. But I didn't see it coming. I thought that it was going to be a sappy, true love, only man I could ever imagine for me type of story.
The chemistry between Jack and Elizabeth was believable, and even how it screwed up her compass was interesting. The oracle/magician was well played, and the undead monkey gag never got old. I'm a little sad that it beat out Spiderman because I thought both of the Spidermans were excellent, but the movie was fine.
__
I even think that King Kong was a better movie, but that has everything to do with Naomi Watts being utter believable as the kind of girl both a man and a beast would die for.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I thought the movie was aweful. It seemed like they just threw a script together relying more on the selling points of the first movie than its own merits.
And Orlando Bloom could very well be the worst "actor" of all time.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I will absolutely watch it again. Because it has Captain Jack in it.
I don't know, I'm just in love with that pirate.
Barbossa surprised and delighted me. I can't wait for the next one.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I saw it tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was funny and it was fun. (And I hear from my friends who have watched it more than once that it is more enjoyable the second time around. I don't think it was quite as good as the first one, but it was not at all disappointing. Not four or five stars, but certainly three or three and a half. I am at a loss to grasp the lousy reviews it has gotten (53% fresh at Rottentomatoes, which I usually find trustworthy, and one and a half stars from the Orlando Sentinel). Those people must have seen a different movie. Pirates is this generation's Indiana Jones. Silly, sure, but good fun.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I am at a loss to grasp the lousy reviews it has gotten (53% fresh at Rottentomatoes, which I usually find trustworthy, and one and a half stars from the Orlando Sentinel). Those people must have seen a different movie. Pirates is this generation's Indiana Jones. Silly, sure, but good fun.
That right there makes me wonder if you've seen the Indiana Jones movies. They were great, each able to stand alone as an excellent movie. The first Pirates was excellent, this one was bad! Really. And the reason it got bad reviews is because it was...bad!
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I don't know about that airman. Temple of Doom was rather terrible in my opinion. Now- The Last Crusade- I could get behind that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
As far as I'm concerned, this one does stand alone. My kids haven't seen the first one (they were too young when it came out). I didn't re-watch it (as I often do before sequels) so I had forgotten most of the details. And it worked just fine for all of us.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I'm with Icky on this one. It's not supposed to be deep, it's supposed to be fun with pirates. Referencing the first movie doesn't make this one worse. The sight gags are still fun, even without the context.
And the Indy movies are self referential too: "What's that?" "The Ark of the Covenant." "Are you sure?" "I'm sure."
Ni!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I actually really enjoyed Temple of Doom. I don't get all the bad press it gets. Admittedly, Spielberg made one really, really bad casting choice, but we can forgive him in the same way we forgive Paul for putting Linda on keyboard.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Temple of Doom is my favorite, probably.
Ni!
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
I really didn't like the water wheel sequence. What is it with films that they make the action sequiencies longer?? I would far prefer, shorter, to the point and more of them, coz then you get to have more funny quips, which really make it for me!
I was also dissapointed that wheras in the first movie Jack was longwinded and confusing the brainless but made sense.
Mullroy: What's your purpose in Port Royal, Mr. Smith? Murtogg: Yeah, and no lies. Jack Sparrow: Well, then, I confess, it is my intention to commandeer one of these ships, pick up a crew in Tortuga, raid, pillage, plunder and otherwise pilfer my weasely black guts out. Murtogg: I said no lies. Mullroy: I think he's telling the truth. Murtogg: If he were telling the truth, he wouldn't have told us. Jack Sparrow: Unless, of course, he knew you wouldn't believe the truth even if he told it to you.
He is now just longwinded.
Same thing they did to Phoebe in Friends. She used to have great pearls of wisdom, you just had to see things from her point of view. And then they decided to just make a weired. So sad.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
-Bang "Look an undead monkey"
(Still making me laugh)
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
"Not all treasure's silver or gold, mate."
Where were *these* types of lines?!?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
They don't need lines like that when Barbossa shows up at the end of the movie.
(Can you tell I'm slightly obsessed? And don't even get me started on Norrington... )
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by firebird: I was also dissapointed that wheras in the first movie Jack was longwinded and confusing the brainless but made sense.
::scratches head::
um, exactly.
-o-
I just went back and watched the original on DVD. It was great--better than the sequel, sure. But I think you guys are turning it into something it wasn't in your memories, kinda like people did with SW: A New Hope. The original POTC took a long time to get moving, dragged at points, and made me laugh less. Why was it better? Better story and more Jack Sparrow. And simply because it came first. But the sequel was, again, thoroughly entertaining. You have to be a dour little person not to have enjoyed yourself. Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I'm like the 5th least dour person I know! And I laughed once. Once! It was the gifting of the dead monkey that did it. As my gut was in the process of busting I remember thinking, "Wow! An original and funny way to make a reference to the good movie!"
Dour. Pshaw!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You only laughed once? I stand by my statement. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm not sure how one can say that this movie stands alone.
quote:No one complained about waiting 2 years to see the end of the LOTR trilogy from its start, or paying for TWO more tickets to see it, and they were also longer. What's the big deal? Movies end in cliffhangers.
LOTR was, as you say, a trilogy! I had no clue there was another PotC movie coming out, and so I waited through the long series of kinda cool moments (and more lame ones) for an awesome climax that wasn't there. And the only climax there was--Jack being eaten--was totally negated by the setup for the third movie, in which we find out that he's not really even dead. The Black Pearl going down with it's captain felt cheapened. And it didn't resonate all that much before that, anyway.
And I can't even remember all the times during the movie I wondered (regarding characters' choices), "Now why would that seem like a logical action to anyone who isn't watching the movie?"
And yeah, Jack's jokes were old before the first movie came out. It's almost insulting how, instead of writing new lines, they seem to just get them out of joke books. If he weren't such a great actor, the writing would drag him completely under.
This movie felt more like Matrix:Reloaded than the Temple of Doom, Two Towers, or Empire. Which is why I seriously doubt I'll be seeing the third.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Sorry, this got a bit ranty.
There were lots of cool moments, but they just didn't fit together into a proper movie. Like others have said, too many moments just seemed completely illogical. Like when they were in the balls made of bones and the one guy said that they only needed like six people to crew the Pearl. What's the first thing they do? Race against each other's ball to get to the top. Instead of, you know, working together and having a fully functioning crew of twelve. Whatever.
The movie's climax also failed pretty hard. Yeah, there were pretty spinny things, but we just had a fight between three "good guys" and then the poorly handled bit with the Kraken. It was nice of the great beastie to give them the time to set stuff up before it attacked again, especially when we saw at the beginning of the movie that it could pull a ship completely under water in about ten seconds. (Why did it pull that French ship underwater, again? No reason at all?) So it ended up being completely stale for me, minus Elizabeth's moment with Jack. Remember back to the first movie, how that's ending was handled. There was still a lot going on: we had pirates versus the Redcoats, Liz and Will working together to stay alive, and at its focus the battle between Jack and Barbossa and the struggle to break the curse. It was engaging.
There was also a lot of superfluous stuff; the natives and the witchdoctor mainly. The movie really needed to focus more on Davy Jones both for story purposes and because he was easily the best thing the movie had going for it. Everytime he was on screen, things got interesting again. Hopefully The World's End is a lot more focused and actually has some character beats rather than trying to be a "ride" movie.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
What I feel, upon reflection, this movie was missing:
1) the plethora of excellent lines that made the first movie so charming (and by excellent I also mean gorgeously delivered), like (as mentioned above), "Not all treasure is silver and gold, mate", or Geoffrey Rush's "You're off the edge of the map, mate. Here there be monsters!" Actually most anything Geoffrey Rush said, which leads me to
2) Geoffrey Rush. I thoroughly irritated my boyfriend by bouncing excitedly when his trompy boots came tromping down the stairs and then talking about Geoffrey Rush the whole way home. This is because Geoffrey Rush is awesome. Remember when he went, "So what now, Jack Sparrow? Are we to be locked in an empty battle until judgment day and trumpets sound?" Or when he went, "Firstly, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothing; and secondly, you have to be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply, and you're not; and thirdly, the code's more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. Welcome to the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!" He did them so beautifully. Ah, the awesomeness of Geoffrey Rush's line delivery.
3) Will being sweet and dumb. It was so, so egregiously missing from this one! His sweet dumbness was a beautiful foil to Jack Sparrow and Barbossa's clevercynicalness. Like when he's telling Barbossa "Elizabeth goes free!" like six times and Barbossa says, "Yes, we know that one..." and all the dumb mistakes he makes that you know if he'd just listen to Jack Sparrow it'd be fine. In this one he sort of seemed to know what was going on. And where does he get off being clever with Davy Jones and calling his father a fool? Can we agree that it would have been much cooler (and made us love his father more) if his father had been the one to set the whole thing up and Will had been the silly person who joined the game and threw a wrench into his father's cleverly executed plot?
4) a more cohesive plot. I know the first one wasn't perfect on plot, but the second one seemed to have episodes thrown in and extended way long without having anything to do with anything (yes, like the cannibals).
5) the total sheer amazing awesome pirateyness that, when I saw the first film for the first (and second and third and fourth and probably fifth, sixth, and seventh) time, had me flopped in my seat with my hands concealing the fact that my mouth was open in glee for long segments of the film. This one was just much less swashbuckling, sad though it is to say it, and I am all about the swashbuckling. It is not, as the first one was, the film that I have spent my whole pirate-loving life waiting to be made. (I really have loved pirates for a most extraordinarily long time. When I was four, my very clever and tolerant eight-year-old amanuensis told me that simply I could not have the pirates in my story sign their ransom note "I love you and you love me" because pirates did not talk like that. Apart from being a completely revelatory moment in my life, the revised note made me realize how simply fantastic pirates were, and I never not noticed it again.)
The third one must be better because it is my belief that no matter what Geoffrey Rush says in his awesome piratey accent, he will be believable. This is my considered opinion.
Jen
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a minute...there are people who didn't like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?! Seriously, crazy man.
Anyway, just saw it and enjoyed it a lot even if it was pretty zany sometimes. Since I was hoping for Barbossa to come back the entire movie, I wasn't surprised to see him again:)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I had a thought.
Assuming that they are going to bring Jack back out of the belly of the beast, is it not likely that others may return from the beast as well.
The deaths of the poor French and partially developed English crews was one of this movies biggest weaknesses for me. Many of us cringed at when they were swallowed by the kraken so brutally. I believe they are prime material for comedy if they survive in the belly of the beast, perhaps to be slowly eaten away by acid, yet all able to follow Captain Jack as he exits the monster.
He, of course, must prove his leadership where even members of his own eaten crew may be less than happy to see him.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think that the compass is gonna play a big part in the third movie.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We should never have seen the Kraken until the final attack. By then I'd already seen it, yawn yawn. Better to have the first be absurdly fast (as it was), the second to be only suggested, and the final time being the one where we finally see the beast. The second time we could have seen the sailors realizing something's about to happen (and Will suddenly, desperately trying to get off the ship to save the crew would have been a nice touch here) and then cut away until later we see a wounded and raving Will being found floating on top of some debris (a la his first rescue as a boy), the only survivor. Then we'd have a bit of horror. Mostly I was marveling at the CGI, but I shouldn't have had time.
And while I loved the three-man sword fight, I didn't like the water wheel. Didn't we already see the big rolling joke -- including the mandatory bystanders stopping their actions to watch it go by -- once in this movie? The fight should have been intricately choreographed. This might have been, but you couldn't tell because they were relying too much on the gimmicks.
Wanted better Jack lines, and not ones I recognized from Douglas Adams. Loved Norrington, as I suspected he was a bastard with a strong code of honor in the first movie and now here he is without the honor. Be really interesting to see where he goes in the third movie. Didn't really like the cannibal scene, and it we'd skipped that the water wheel bit later on would have been funnier. Liked Elizabeth and her pirate kink. Loved Davy Jones, and his crew. As has been said, not enough swashbuckling. Wished they wouldn't have brought in the two pirates from the first movie, just because it looked contrived and because I'd rather see two new wonderful characters. In the next movie are we going to see the two soldiers from the first movie? Some of the holdover jokes from the first movie worked for me -- the undead monkey, the rum, he prisoners coaxing Elizabeth -- and some fell flat because I saw them coming, like Will getting slapped in Jack's place on Tortuga. LOVED Barbossa's appearance, because I didn't see it coming. When the boots appeared I was expecting Keith Richards.
This is very much a second movie. Darker than the first, because it has to stretch farther and leave you in a dangerous place to cliffhanger the third, and not as satisfying as the first since the first is generally constructed to stand on its own. This one needs the third to be complete. I really liked it. Not as much as the first.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:It was very difficult to tell which parts were practical effects and which were CGI in Davey Jones's case
Davey Jones was entirely CGI. web page Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I know I am missing something obvious here, but I didn't hear what Elizabeth said at the end while chaining up Jack. I wasn't sure if she really had a crush on him, or if it was just a staged kiss to get him into cuffs. Either way, I don't get why she cuffed him in the first place. He made the right choice and came back to help. Why would she turn on him then? Maybe I just missed this part because I was sleep deprived when I watched it. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Somehow she'd figured out that the Kraken was only following Jack and she chained him to the ship so that it would kill Jack, enabling the rest of them to get safely to shore.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think she did have a crush on him, but she had to trap him in order to save herself and everyone else. When she said, "I'm not sorry", I'm not sure she was completely telling the truth.
What I thought was interesting was that she and Jack were both right in the end. She told Jack that someday, he'd choose to be heroic, and he turned around and came back to help. And he told Elizabeth that someday, she'd try the ruthless pirate route, and sure enough, that's what she did at the end. That's why when she said she wasn't sorry, Jack smiled and said, "Pirate."
I love stories where people change roles like that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
PS. Sasha has fallen for the marketing of this movie. Except he calls it Captain Carrib Bean, and the bad guy is Baby Jones.
I'd pay to see Mr. Bean The Pirate, as Captain Carrib Bean.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I believe they are prime material for comedy if they survive in the belly of the beast, perhaps to be slowly eaten away by acid, yet all able to follow Captain Jack as he exits the monster .
The pictures, Dan, the pictures in my mind -- and while I'm eating breakfast. *ack*
Just saw the show last night . . . the new question is:
Does Elizabeth decide to go with her pirate self, surrender to her hidden desire for Jack, and spurn Will? *laughing*
The water wheel was far too much like rats in a cage to appeal -- although, perhaps that was the point. *shrugs*
The three fighting over the beating heart -- that is somehow linked to Davy Jones' unrequited love or lost love or whatever -- purely ridiculous. However, entertaining. Elizabeth had some nice moves in the fight scenes . . . obviously, she and Will have been hard at work. Ahhh! Strong women figures for the girls to look up to.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Anyone notice that the only way for the Flying Dutchman to have had Triple cannons was it if was a breech loading cannon? Which begs the question what YEAR is this movie? The Black Pearl was already an old ship when CJS made a deal with DJ to bring it back to the surface. At least 80-95% of the world is explored, martime trade is booming and the Royal Navy is beginning to give in to the East India Trading company.
So anyone willing to gander a geuss?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone notice that the only way for the Flying Dutchman to have had Triple cannons was it if was a breech loading cannon? Which begs the question what YEAR is this movie? The Black Pearl was already an old ship when CJS made a deal with DJ to bring it back to the surface. At least 80-95% of the world is explored, martime trade is booming and the Royal Navy is beginning to give in to the East India Trading company.
So anyone willing to gander a geuss?
Dude, it's a freakin movie. Quit looking so deeply. Triple cannons never existed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
buzz off I like figuring out what era these movies supposedly are taking place in it is my right to.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
You know Blayne, I find your question interesting. It never occured to me to wonder about it because each time I find myself in a story with magic I just suppose it's out of our time and space, but it's still interesting to try and make parallels about real history.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blayne,
They only show the cannons firing a couple shots, what if all the cannons were simply preloaded, and then set up to launch as they did. Had they fired more than three shots each, then it would have needed to be a breach loading cannon. Think of it as a preloaded gatling gun.
And not that it really matters, but historically Port Royal was a haven for pirates, not a well run colony city (for the most part) that is depicted as in the movie.
For chronology purposes, England took control of the city in 1655, and it was largely destroyed by a massive earthquake in 1692. However, the map in the movie shows Australia, which was not really explored or founded in any meaningful way until James Cook did so in 1770. The East India Trading company worked primarily in the EAST Indies, in other words, in and around India. The movies take place in the WEST Indies. The EIT wouldn't be there.
However it makes sense that Jack could have still run into them on his trip(s) to Singapore, which itself wasn't founded as a trading post until 1819, making Jack's reference to it in the first movie (and Elizabeth's corset) misleading as well.
So basically the whole thing is a chronological if not total historical pile of crap, but who cares? It's fun!
You want a date, I'll average all those dates together: 1734. That's when it took place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I finally saw this Monday.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I absolutely hated that Will condemned the English ship to the Kraken. I know he realized it too late, but I didn't enjoy the sequence at all. For the movie to remain light and funny, you had to not care that a ship of innocent bystanders as destroyed. If we do care, then there's no resolution - one throway line, and everyone moves on to more funny antics.
Oh my stars, I thought it was long. There was no actual story. The twenty-minute, racist sequence with the villagers existed in order to make the Jack-kabob joke, and it wasn't worth it.
I agree - zero rewatchability. It was beautiful and the acting was good, so I don't regret seeing it this time, but I can't imagine voluntarily watching it again.
I am right with you. It just seemed too grim, somehow. After the English ship bought it, there seemd to be consequences which detracted from the silly charm of the first one. And too, too long. I usually like long movies, but I kept being impatient for each scene to end.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I think she did have a crush on him, but she had to trap him in order to save herself and everyone else. When she said, "I'm not sorry", I'm not sure she was completely telling the truth.
What I thought was interesting was that she and Jack were both right in the end. She told Jack that someday, he'd choose to be heroic, and he turned around and came back to help. And he told Elizabeth that someday, she'd try the ruthless pirate route, and sure enough, that's what she did at the end. That's why when she said she wasn't sorry, Jack smiled and said, "Pirate."
I love stories where people change roles like that.
Now that I've seen it, I think she had a crush on him. But also, I think that I'd take Jack over boring Will any day.
I liked the movie a lot, actually. Although I kind of wish it had ended at a different point. I mean, even the Lord of the Rings movies sort of had an end, and this one...not so much.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)