posted
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.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
posted
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
buzz off I like figuring out what era these movies supposedly are taking place in it is my right to.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
