posted
After months of hearing about how much all you people loved Pirates of the Caribbean, I finally went out and rented it. I watched it last night. It was pretty good. It was great fun. It had no glaring flaws. I would definitely watch it again. Thanks for the recommendation.
But I was unable to see any actual brilliance. I was under the impression that it was a fantastic movie, and that some of the acting performances were amazing. I didn't see that. It was just good.
While I was at it, I rented Matrix: Reloaded (Blockbuster was out of Revolutions tapes and only had dvd's). I wanted to watch those movies to get some closure on the Matrix, even though I had read lots of horrible reviews, many from you guys. I was very pleasantly surprised. I have no real complaints with this movie. I don't know what the big problems are. It, too, was quite a good movie. Maybe it doesn't get really bad until Revolutions?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing about Pirates of the Caribbean is not that it's a spectacular, breathtaking film event. It's just one of these perfect little gems (along the lines of Princess Bride I'd say) that are just so darn pleasant and enjoyable that you could watch it a thousand times. And Johnny Depp. You're not thrilled by it, it doesn't rock your world, but you love it.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was disappointed by Revolutions, but only because it didn't actually wrap up any of the philospohical ends left dangling. I thought Reloaded was an awesome survey of the different philsophies in play around the first couple of centuries AD... and then Revolutions was just a pretty decent action movie... with some slightly interesting ideas about Christ and aprticularly the nature of His Atonement.
And I was hoping for something bigger than that. I really thought they were all three pretty cool movies...
edit: and I thought Geoffery Rush was the really Brilliant one in PotC
posted
Matrix Reloaded turned me off so much that I refuse to see Revolutions. Which is good, I think, becuase I've heard it takes all the problems I had with Reloaded and makes them worse.
As far as PotC, I went in thinking it was going to be cheesy and terrible, and came out very happy and fully entertained. I can't ask for a whole lot more than that in a movie.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Pirates of the Carribbean is good, but also overrated. After seeing it for the first time in at the movie theater, I thanked myself for not choosing Johnny English instead.
The plot of the movie, unfortunately, was very easy to understand, which made me frustrated at the fact that so many people loved the movie months later. I've heard many people praising POTC as the best movie they've ever seen, and all I can keep thinking is, "Why?"
At first I thought, "Okay, half of a movie's success is built on the actors, and the major female population is obviously entertained by Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp. Understandable." But then you wonder, "Lord of the Rings had Viggo, Elijah, and Orlando to draw in female fans, and a longer, more interesting plot. Why isn't this movie the talk of teenage fangirls?" Then it hit me. "It has to be Johnny Depp."
As for Revolutions, I rented it the other day and watched it again. It was actually a bit more pleasant to watch the second time through, (probably because when you watch it on DVD, it's in widescreen.) However, I must admit that leaving major threads hanging in a movie that are going to be continued in an online video game is a very bad idea for marketting a movie franchise for the mainstream population. Very bad indeed.
So, in conclusion, Johnny Depp should have played Aragorn in LOTR to boost the film's success, and the moral of our tale is: Never end a movie trilogy in the middle of the story.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Johnny Depp should have played Aragorn in LOTR
This was probably tongue in cheek. But it made me revolt, so I have to write something: Johnny Depp would have been ALL WRONG, it's not his type of role at all. Besides, why cast such an important movie just to appeal to young females when the movie is about so much more?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I was obviously joking, and I would never in a million years look for a replacement for Viggo, but honestly, what would POTC have been like if Ben Stiller played Jack Sparrow?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Also, if you've read the screenplay for PotC, you'll know that what Mr. Depp with the script is Far Far better than the original....
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, as an actor, Mr. Depp is wonderful, and made Jack Sparrow into a wonderful, unforgettable character.
I was simply commenting that the cast of a movie isn't exactly a complete reason to see the film, and the reason POTC is so much more widely known and discussed by many people out there is because the plot is very simple, and the good acting does a great job to overshadow the story.
In other words, which are not my own, many people out there consider LOTR and "geek movie," and POTC not. I'm just simply disgusted by this.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who cares what they think? LOTR made gobs more money than PotC anyway. I reaaly don't know why you seem to think PotC is so much more popular than LOTR. Maybe it's just your group. In my personal experience it hasn't been that way.
posted
Pirates is just so much FUN. Yeah, it's not a great movie, it doesn't make me cry for the pure emotion of seeing it like Return of the King did, but it's such a good time.
I think comparing it to Princess Bride was right on the nose. I can watch either of those movies any time, and enjoy myself.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
No you're not. But your comments were fun before you pretended to be righteously indignant.
Of course Johnny Depp should have been Aragorn. He should have also been JC in Passion of the Christ, Dewey Finn in School of Rock and the ex-porn star in Girl Next Door. Oh, and every part in Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed.
posted
It wasn't one of those movies that you would mentally file away as a classic, but it was entertaining. For example: Cheaper by the Dozen was not a good movie, but it was almost too funny for it's own good. I guess I liked the feeling of nostalgia it gave me from my childhood.
[ April 12, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and Ralphie, serious or not, Johnny Depp would have made a terrible Aragorn. Are you sure you're not biased toward him because of an attraction you might have toward him? Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
POTC was great because it was a really good fluff movie. It didn't pretend to be deep, it was just out to have fun, and did so wonderfully.
Most of the movies out today follow the ritual formula of: Boy meets girl boy does stupid supposedly funny things boy and girl have long drawn out sex scenes boy does more stupid things for comic effect girl gets mad at boy and storms out boy wins girl back, meanwhile doing more stupid things meant to be comedic
POTC was refreshing, a cool drink of clear water after being locked in a cave with nothing but diet coke for as long as you can remember.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
common acronyms...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
