Get It Off Your (Dead Man's) Chest: Pirates Movie Reviews

[innerSpaceman]

Maybe Alex was right.


I hated it.




I thought it was a mess. Convoluted, confusing, no plot or even a perceivable through-line to the story, and Sparrow and Swann were both too mean-spirited for my tastes. It seemed as if the special effects and art departments determined the story of the film instead of vice-versa.

To my mind, there was far too little piracy and too much mythology.
Did we really need that many kraken attacks?

For all the action, the film seemed joyless and unfun. I was bored for too much of the time, though there was some great silly entertainment scattered about. But it wasn't even half a film. Despite a bloated two-and-a-half hour running time, the meat of the story was barely started before the To Be Continued ending (which, to me, played less like a cliffhanger and more like a commercial break).

Problem is, I wasn't engaged enough with the tale to really care to see more of it. I'd be much more excited about Pirates III if it wasn't going to be just a continuance of Pirates II. Davy Jones, wonderful CG and performance as was there, just didn't do it for me as a villain and the story revolving around him and the Dead Man's Chest wasn't involving enough for me to care about a second half that unfolds any later than next week.


Certainly, there was stuff I liked. But overall, a complete Meh. (as in Mess)

[blueerica]

It's as though you took the words right out of my mouth, iSm...

I went to see it with a friend who said it best:

2.5 Hours of filler, poor dialogue, 30 minute plot derivatives, some good action sequences, and open endings..

You do this with T.V.... not movies.

Maybe it's because I loved the first so much. Upon further and further consideration it was so artfully crafted, you could get the many wonderful layers without feeling bashed over the head with it. This movie just tried too hard. Watching it required effort. Sure, I saw the midnight showing, and yes, I was tired... But I ended up dozing for about 10 minutes, brought my head up, turned to my friend and asked him "This looks like it's unimportant, am I right?" to which he responded "Yes, I have no idea what the f*ck this is about..." I turned my head and dozed for at least another 5, and woke up once it got interesting.

I have a fun little contest: Who will be the first person to guess which part I snoozed through... Any takers? Any guesses?

I felt like I was asking myself repeatedly whether the movie was going to end at all, and imagine my surprise (and ultimate dismay) when it didn't end at all. (Even though I do love Geoffrey Rush...)

[blueerica]

I should also add that there were many parts to the film that I enjoyed. Anyone else hear the suckers on the Krakken rolling down the sides of the boat? That gave me the chills... It was beautifully shot, no doubt.

[scaeagles]

Not a review, but I did see that it had the biggest opening day in Hollywood history - 55.5 million. Wow.

[Alex]

If anybody cares, here is my review (http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=sr060707as) for MP.

I recongize that there are serious flaws in the movie but I still enjoyed it quite a bit. Each of the flaws I see in this movie were present, in equal parts, in the first movie so I think for many people it will just be boring to experience it again.

I wouldn't say I loved it but I enjoyed it. And that is true of the first one as well. With this one I was entertained enough to ignore the flaws whereas with Superman Returns I was not entertained at all so all I noticed were the flaws.

[blueerica]

Wow, I am actually kind of surprised... there was so much there in the first movie that it took a couple of weeks in a class last semester to take apart the symbolism and story telling elements (I was in a class called Comic Spirit, during which we discussed the history and meaning of comedy). I saw a lot of it before then, but after seeing the movie for its parts, I was only sorely disappointed by the sequel. Hrmm.. but this thread is not about the first movie, so I'll step off it.

[FEJ]

Didn't hate it, but not raving either. To me it just seemed like a big setup for PotCIII. It was like they had too much story for one movie, but not ennough for 2, so they stretched it. I too was perturbed about, upon initial introduction, the Kraken took the first ship "to the bottom" real quickly but then it was on the surface for The Black Pearl to find. Then subsequently it took forever to take down a ship.
The added slapstick, although fun, seemed to take away from the movie. It really couldn't decide which way to go. Serious mythical lore, or comedy. Yes, some comedy is ok, but it just seemed as if there was too much to take the rest seriously. Some of the gags went so far that It distracted me and I started getting cynical. The sword fight on the wheel... come on.. funny for a second-impossible after a bit. (For a serious scene-great for comedy). Also, when Will was hiding away in the bow, and it submerged, you can't tell me he was able to get out of there under the pressure of the water and the surprise of not knowing it was going down. At the end, when the feet were shown on the stairs, my heart started racing and I was hoping it was Keith Richards. I was all ready to cheer loudly but that was quickly quelled by the re-introduction of Geoffrey Rush. It left me thinking "didn't he bleed to death in the first one?" blah blah blah.

There were some fun parts, don't get me wrong. The three way sword fighting scene, Elizabeth hamming it up but not getting any attention, etc... I also liked the way Davey Jones Crew (especially Bootstrap Bill) would "grow" as the movie went on.

Overall, I was entertained, but not really surprised or overwhelmed. It reminded me of Star Wars: Episode II. Not really needed for most of it and really filler until the third installment. I will see the third one also, hoping it will wrap up some of the things that were left in this episode.

[BarTopDancer]

My random thoughts.

Loved: SHINY! And Johnny. He's dreamy, though I'm not sure I like what they are doing with his character.

I didn't get the beginning, what does that have to do with anything? And the ending. Barbossa. Really?! Didn't he die at the end? Though I suppose they have to show that they can bring people back from the dead so they can bring Sparrow back.

Was anyone else waiting for the LOST monster when they were running through the island or King Kong to appear?

[cstephens]

Generally, I liked the film, but I think a lot of that is the attachment to the characters from the first film. Otherwise, the story was very choppy, and I'm not entirely sure I got it all. I'm pretty good with listening to accents, but I had a *really* difficult time with understanding both the haitianish magic lady living by the river and Davey Jones, so that made it even more difficult. And while there was a lot of eye-candy action, a lot of it seemed like it was there *only* for the eye-candy and the "wow, look what we can do" factor: the entire fight sequence on the rolling water wheel, most of the stuff having to do with the crew of the Flying Dutchman, Jack's whole escape attempt with the pole still tied to him. It almost seemed like they were relying entirely on all the good-will and interest generated by the first film and didn't bother to actually come up with a good story, which was mostly what drew me into the first film in the first place. This time, some of the coincidences were entirely too contrived.

Spoiler for the ending:

I had forgotten that Barbossa was going to be in this, so it wasn't until they mentioned the new captain and I saw the first footstep that he popped into my mind. Great entrance, but I have no idea what he said because all of us in the theatre were screaming so loudly.

Spoiler for the ending-ending:

Lots of people still left when the credits started to roll, but quite a few stayed for the whole thing (maybe it's an El Cap thing), so there were still a number of people there for the scene after the credits. And it was nice that the dog was still alive and had been made king, but doesn't that mean eventually, they will still roast him and eat him? :(

[Alex]

Considering that the entire movie is a chase to find a still-beating heart buried for years in the sand of a random atoll using a magic compass that takes you to your true desire I don't really have a problem with the return of Barbossa.

So far I have received about 35 emails in response to my review (mostly because they want me to tell them what the post-credits scene was) and so far nobody has said they didn't like it and many have taken me to task for not liking it enough. I'm not saying that argues against not liking it if you didn't, just pointing it out (if general consensus ruled I would have to like Twister).

[cstephens]

And the ending. Barbossa. Really?! Didn't he die at the end? Though I suppose they have to show that they can bring people back from the dead so they can bring Sparrow back.

But he's not dead, remember? At the end of POTC, the monkey steals one of the coins again, presumably re-triggering the curse. That's confirmed in this film since Bootstrap is "alive", and remember when Jack shoots the monkey and shows the haitian lady that he's giving her an undead monkey? So we know that Jack isn't going to die anyway. I guess it's just the two pirates (the ones who dressed up in the dresses on the first one) who still think they're mortal now.

[scaeagles]

I haven't seen it, so I'm talking in theory here and mostly talking about cstephens' post.

Once the curse was reversed at the end of the first (Dr. Seuss sounding, that is), why would the others be subjected to it again when only the monkey had taken gold out after the reversal of the curse? Seems odd, as that would imply that once you've repaid the debt, should someone else incur that debt, you are again beholden to said curse.

[Alex]

No, the monkey is still alive because it had a coin. Nobody else was still cursed. Otherwise Jack Sparrow and the two comedic-relief pirates (and why a movie that is one big bit of comedic-relief needs comedic-relief characters I don't know) would turn to skeletons every night. Which they don't. When the monkey first appears at the beginning of the movie it is in undead form but Jack, standing right next to it, is not.

Bootstrap Bill is still alive because he took the deal to work on Davy Jones's crew while the curse was still in effect (and he was sitting at the bottom of the ocean tied to a cannon) and is now under the protection of that spell.

[innerSpaceman]

I have to disagree with Alex about the story messiness of the first film vs. this one.

The thing I've come to admire about the original (and, as CP will endlessly remind me, I wasn't a fan after my first viewing) is its tight story contstruction ... especially in the first two acts. The first third is almost a textbook case of character introduction, action introduction, and plot intorduction. The second act follows through nicely, and the third act ties things up a little haphazardly, but with conciseness.

Fun characterizations and zifty zombie effects cannot carry me for multiple viewings. This is why I will not be seeing Dead Man's Chest over and over.

As a sequel, it was even worse than I could have imagined. It's got all the tired repetiveness of character and weaksauce plot of most sequels, but - as ubergeek pointed out - the whole thing was merely a thinly-disguised set-up for a third movie. For god's sake, if they had to stretch it out to two movies, why was one of them 2-1/2 hours long!!


But, I liked Bootstrap Bill and I sorta dug some of the squid crew of the Flying Dutchman. Bootstrap's scenes with Will Turner were a little bit of the character expansion that good sequels provide. I think it's poor sequels that stoop, as this one did, to having the main characters squabble and backstab each other as a pathetically obvious device for a kiss-and-make-up denoument in a later film.


And I don't know what it is about Davy Jones that didn't do it for me. He's interesting looking, the performance was bittersweet and moving. But it wasn't menacing, imo. Maybe it's difficult to strike a balance between scenery-chewing pirate and legitimately dangerous villain ... but it's been done before in this very same series and -- (even though the drowned cat's out of the bag, I'll use spoiler tags) -- -- the one thing that might be redeeming about the third movie is that Geoffrey Rush is back as Captain Barbossa


The salutes to the ride were fewer this time, but still enjoyable. Tortuga seems to be the stand-in for the ride's sacked village, and the movie's dunking well scene this time out was in fine keeping with that set-up. The gag about the prisoners whistling for the dog was cute. And the actual dog's ultimate fate was interesting, if you consider reversing the spelling.

I shouted out "throw me a roll" during the dead-on, firefly-filled bayou swamp scene, but I didn't get a laugh.

[BarTopDancer]

ISM - I would have laughed.

Ok, so can someone explain to me why Jack did not want the heart to be stabbed? I totally missed that part. Did he want to control the sea? It seemed to be some other reason.

[innerSpaceman]

He needs the heart to bargain with Davy Jones for release from their bargain. It wasn't made clear what destroying the heart would do ....perhaps if Davy Jones "dies," Sparrow would still have to serve under Hammerhead Man or ShrimpFace or some other promoted member of the Crustaceon Crew.


I don't blame you for being confused. If the first film was perplexing about the precise nature of the coin curse, this one is absolutely mindboggling in its compexo-absurdity.

[cstephens]

Bootstrap Bill is still alive because he took the deal to work on Davy Jones's crew while the curse was still in effect (and he was sitting at the bottom of the ocean tied to a cannon) and is now under the protection of that spell.

OK, I didn't get that at all.

But then, that still doesn't explain why Barbossa is still alive. Maybe they're saving that explanation for 3? And they're gonna have to explain how they're bringing Jack back then.


I remember speculation after the first one about whether the monkey stealing the coin would re-trigger the curse, and yeah, it seemed unfair that if one of them stole it again, they would all be cursed again, but then there was the whole question of Barbossa.

[BarTopDancer]

Thanks Steve.

There should have been more shiny and less confusing stuff.

[BarTopDancer]

See I fully expected Jack to stab the Krakken through the roof of it's mouth to kill it (as has been done in other movies), and I expected him to come down the stairs.

[innerSpaceman]

Pfft, I'm still confused about why Barbossa is (was?) dead in the first place.

When he was shot by Jack, Turner's blood had been spilled on the treasure, but the last coin had still not been returned to the chest. Aren't both things necessary for the curse to have been broken?:confused: :confused: :confused:




This simply does not bode well for me understanding what the frell is going on in the 2-part sequel pair.

[Alex]

I'm curious, iSm, what you hated about the first one and then later decided you were wrong about it?

I agree that the first one did a great job with character introduction but then after that I feel it was all over the place in plotting. But then this one didn't do character introductions except for Davy Jones and otherwise assumes you know who everybody is from the first movie (interestingly Slate's critic to review this film saw it without ever seeing the first one; she hated it).

As for it just being a set up for the next movie, has there ever been a movie that already has its sequal written that isn't mostly a setup for the next movie? There aren't a lot of examples of this but almost by definition the earlier part is going to be incomplete on its own as will the latter part (but you won't be left hanging, obviously).

Since I Disney hasn't been shy about the fact that the two movies were written and filmed together I don't really have a problem with the format more common to television.

[Not Afraid]

I haven't read the other posts yet, but I can only imagine that there is no joy in LoTville today.

Contrived. That's my word for it.

Although there were moments of swashbuckling fun (action sequences mostly involving round things) the overall film seems so contrived. There was no mystery, not an ounce of suspense, and the gags got disracting.

I am stil not a fan of CGI effects, and the Cracken didn't help matters. I find they completely take away from the story that is unfolding. However, the story didn't really unfold in an interesting way, so I guess I shouldn't have bothered me.

Orlando Bloom was so wooden throughout the performance. When he did emote, it was as if a characature of himself was appearing - Look at my grimace while my father is whipping me! Johnny was entertaining as usual. I do love this character. Kiera did some fine acting, I thought. She at least tried to be real against wood-boy and Mr. Show.

In the Blue Bayou scene, I kept looking to see if I could see the strings on the fireflies. :)

The film ended and we stayed through credits. I said outloud - what happened to the dog? Chris called it. What a joke of an ending.

I thought that this film would enlighten me a bit about what they did to the attraction. It did nothing of the sort and it just made me even sadder about what they did to our beloved Pirates.

Such potential. Such unrealized potential.

[Not Afraid]

One other things that makes me roll my eyes:

Several times either Jack or Elizabeth were holding the compass that points to your hearts true desire - or whateve the pharse is - and it always pointed to the other. Hence, the compass is broken. Are we supposed to be caught up in the unrequited love that is between them? Because, that is one poorly constructed love story, if you ask me.

A gem said after the film last night (I don't remember who said what).

Next attraction re-do - Pirates Jungle Cruise!

[Alex]

I didn't get that from the compass at all. In fact, it obviously didn't point to Jack when Elizabeth used it since it led them where they were trying to go. And when Jack used it it kept changing the direction it pointed, seemingly without any purpose so unless Elizabeth was moving around a lot, and very quickly, it wasn't pointing to her.

But I'll be seeing it again today (Lani wasn't able to skip work to join me at the press screening) so I'll watch for that and see if I was just missing it.

I agree on Orlando Bloom (and said as much in my review) but that was true of the first movie, Kingdom of Heaven (speaking of which, has anybody seen the director's cut on DVD and is it worth it?), three LotR movies, and presumably Elizabethtown as well. So no surprise there.

[Not Afraid]

The compass thing didn't occure to me until this morning after a cup of coffee, so I could be dead man's chest wrong. I'm sorry you have to see it again.

[€uroMeinke]

I found myself entertained by the film, since all I really wanted was some swashbuckling pirates, and I got that - but come the ending, I had to let out a groan and the Matrix imediately came to mind.

I find I missed the witty dialogue of the first film, Jack and Barbossa where absolutely charming in calling "Parley" or "refusing to aquiesce.." etc. and this film had none of that. I was also dissappointed in the derivative comedy used in some of the scenes - the whole "what is the key for" scene was just Monty Python "witch" scene, down to the delivery of lines. That just made the film less clever for me and the first was oh so very clever.

Bootstrap Bill, was a bit of a dissappointment for me - for those reading it, he was like Charles in Madam Bovary. So he stood up to a bunch of mutineying pirates? Eh, now he's just some post-fire-in-the-belly father-son resolution full of regrets for not playing catch together more often. Perhaps in part three they'll beat drums together and hug - bleh. I only hope they use Kieth Richards in a better way.

Predictions for part three - 1) Bootstrp Bill & Kieth Richards will save the day, casue that's what dads do 2) there where be a comedic scene in which Davy Jone's heart will be tossed about only to be caught by the dog like a frisbee.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Auuuuggggghhhh! I'm so frustrated! I tried so hard to like this movie!

Thar be spoilers ahead - I'm not using tags here.

Let's start with the good. I enjoyed much of it...

The entire cannibals sequence was wonderful. (minus the dog, sooooo stupid to have him there, though he is adorable). I loved the Time Bandits-esque escape from dangling balls, then the ensuing hamster ball adventure, and Sparrow's shish-kebab perils.

The Curse of the Wedding Gown was funny. I think the last couple of mentions could have been taken out but before then it was pretty hilarious.

Blue Bayou looked great and fit well into the story. I dug the voodoo chick too.

I thought Davy Jones was plenty menacing and adored his squidy head. Also loved his crew. Creepy and gorgeous.

Unlike the huge problems of character (more later) I really liked what they did with Norrington. They went a tad over the top with his humiliation but the rest of it was great.

Dug the three way fight scene, including the waterwheel. Loved the Kraken, definitely some awesome 20,000 Leagues action there. (Uber - you're right on timing - but you wouldn't want to see 20 minutes of other boats being taken by the Kraken.) Loved nearly all of the action and visual stuff, actually.

---

Now for the frustrating badness that ruined this movie for me.

Funny how you guys say it had no plot - this struck me as having nothing but plot. I felt like I was being read to. "Now this happens, now they go here, now they learn this, now they go here." On and on and completely lacking a feeling of fun and adventure as it went. Exact opposite of how the first movie felt.

So many repeat gags from the first movie. It seems funny to say having just seen Superman Returns, which contains so many references to the older movies, but in Pirates this tactic was done very poorly. They had little to do with what was happening and were tossed in as so much elbowing reminders of the first film (which did all of this way better).

The ride references were also crappy (other than BB). Why did we see someone being dunked in a well? You see it for a split second and it's like, WTF? They beat the jail scene to death - in the first it was homaged perfectly, so why bring it up again (and again and again)? There are so many other scenes in the ride that could be used. This movie had much less to do with the ride. It has nothing to do with the new overlay, that's sure, which makes the overlay look even worse.

Someone said above that much of the enjoyment was due to their love of the characters, and that's definitely true for Sparrow's antics...but much of my pain was due to my love of the characters.

Will Turner bored me to death. Bored! He was the fiery passion of the first film. Everyone in the audience fell in love with him. But here...eh. I was so sad. There was barely a moment where I felt for him at all.

Euro mentioned Bootstrap's problems. In the first he was a shining beacon - tried to keep his son out of piracy, was the only pirate who felt bad about mutiny - but here he's an slug and an idiot. When I thought of them putting Bootstrap in the second movie, I envisioned a strong, kick-ass character. Total letdown.

I did enjoy the usual Sparrow sillyness but I couldn't BELIEVE what they did to his character. Yes, he was somewhat a chicken in the first, but here he was a cold-blooded coward. A pirate may be willing to do a lot to save his own skin, but are you kidding me? One HUNDRED people would be put into one hundred years of servitude to the devil, just so he could escape what he deserved! And this was after he gave Davy Jones Will Turner. Just handed him over. I was horrified. This was not your average fun piratey escapade. This was fcked up! And his first mate helps him recruit souls??

And lastly, Barbossa, as well as the "death" of Jack. Look, if no one can die, then what's the bloody point? Once you kill someone and bring them back to life, no problem, then the whole adventure aspect is what dies. I don't WANT Barbossa back because Jack KILLED him. Why pull the trigger on Jack if he's not actually dead? What does it even mean? Awful, awful.

---

I summed it up to myself at the end of the movie. At the end of "Black Pearl", I was breathless, I was cheering, and I wanted to see it again, immediately. Definitely not so with this one. As NA said afterwards, "there are parts I want to see again but I don't want to sit through the other stuff."

I am sad. :( :( :(

[CoasterMatt]

I can't wait to see this done by bunnies :)

[Ghoulish Delight]

When he was shot by Jack, Turner's blood had been spilled on the treasure, but the last coin had still not been returned to the chest. Aren't both things necessary for the curse to have been broken?:confused: :confused: :confused: My justification for him dying was that the curse has a time lag. i.e., when a cursed pirate's non-moonlit flesh gets injured, it needs a bit of time to heal. So he gets shot, there's a hole in him, THEN the coins are returned, breaking the curse, bullet hole remaining. That's why he suddenly started to bleed.

He needs the heart to bargain with Davy Jones for release from their bargain. It wasn't made clear what destroying the heart would do ....perhaps if Davy Jones "dies," Sparrow would still have to serve under Hammerhead Man or ShrimpFace or some other promoted member of the Crustaceon Crew.Jack said it. If he kills Jones by killing the heart, no one would be able to call off the Craken.

Umm, ditto to what the detractors have said. Forget the story problems, forget the loss of interest in once-interesting characters. What it all comes down to is...it lost its fun. The first movie was fun, beginning to end. This one was not. It was plodding and heavy-handed. The humor was no longer the point of the movie. They were just a string of comic relife punchlines. Feh.

Enjoyable bits and pieces to be sure, but a far cry from the first. Even the ride references seemed more of the Haunted Mansion Movie variety than the far more clever and integrated references of the first. I mean THREE jail scene references? THREE?! And they already had one in the first movie. Get over it!

[BarTopDancer]

Oh the other good part was the preview for the Transformers! Transformers. More than meets the eye. Transformers. Robots in disguise. That was a good preview. I totally thought it was going to be for some scary movie. I wonder if they will have Optimus Prime and how they will resolve that story line.

[innerSpaceman]

I didn't get that from the compass at all. In fact, it obviously didn't point to Jack when Elizabeth used it since it led them where they were trying to go..
I just think you missed something you'll pick up on the second time. Heheh, I might have, too - - and this is the worst movie that I've ever wanted to see a second time. But as I recall, after the compass - in Elizabeth's hands - gave them the course heading, she tried it again - - and it pointed directly to Jack. She noticed, and was alarmed.

I agree on Orlando Bloom (and said as much in my review) but that was true of the first movie and Kingdom of Heaven
Yes, I did see the Director's Cut of that film, and it's worth a viewing - - though not for any improvement in Bloom's performance. The film again fails because he simply does not have the moxie to carry a picture alone, and his under-emoting, constantly and quietly depressed character didn't help matters. But there's an interesting sub-plot (notably one which doesn't feature Orlando at all) and other fleshing-out that make it a far superior film to the version released in theaters.

Still, I'm sorry I purchased it instead of Netflixed it. And I rather doubt I'll be owning any but the original Pirates movie either. My heart sinks when I consider what they've done to Walt's masterpiece attraction for the likes of this substandard sequel.


As for your other question about the structure of the first movie that I found agreeable, perhaps after a wash-the-foul-taste-from-my-eyes viewing that I feel coming on very soon, I'll be able to respond with more specificity and clarity.

[innerSpaceman]

And I'm right there with C.P. about Jack Sparrow being an unbelievable, yellow-bellied, turncoat slug in this movie ... never able for a moment to be a successful pirate with the attitude and cajones he failed to display in Part II.


In fact, I believe Jack Sparrow is the worst pirate I've ever seen.

[BarTopDancer]

This may or may not make anyone feel better, but the 2nd Jurassic Park movie totally sucked too. But the 3rd one rocked.

[innerSpaceman]

Eh, Matrix Reloaded really sucked, and the third one made it look like Citizen Frelling Kane.

[scaeagles]

My justification for him dying was that the curse has a time lag. i.e., when a cursed pirate's non-moonlit flesh gets injured, it needs a bit of time to heal. So he gets shot, there's a hole in him, THEN the coins are returned, breaking the curse, bullet hole remaining. That's why he suddenly started to bleed.

I'd agree with that. Earlier in the first there is a point in time where Elizabeth uses the wheel of the ship to break the neck of an undead pirate. Takes him a few seconds to pop it back. If his neck was broken and then the curse is immediately lifted, he has no time to fix it.

[BarTopDancer]

My former co-worker (the one we saw while waiting) saw it and loved it.

He's not a geek. Disney geek that is.

[Alex]

Ok, saw it a second time this afternoon. I'm just going to assume that spoilers are ok.

First of all, the first time I saw it was at a press only screening where each press person could bring one guest. There was applause at the end but it wasn't a normal audience. Unfortunately, this time I still can't judge audience reaction. In the middle of the final kraken encounter the theater fire alarm went off, everybody was forced to stand out in the heat (it was about 100 degrees here today) for about 40 minutes before getting to watch the final 8 minutes of the movie. About half the audience drifted off when the guy said we'd be standing outside for 30+ minutes and the rest watched the final still sweating and with any mood completely broken.

I was wrong about the compass. Indeed it does point to Jack twice while Elizabeth is using it. I don't really read it, though, as a romantic interest so much as a primal lusting for what she thinks Jack Sparrow is (getting to do whatever he wants and yet still fundamentally a decent person, despite his protestations). More that what she most wants is Jack Sparrow's life, not so much to jump his bones. But I guess we'll have to see how it goes in the next movie.

I now don't have any problem with how Will ended up at the island. I had misremembered the sequence of events with the Flying Dutchman. It goes all the way to the island without submerging, sits there for a bit while Jones takes in the situation and then goes under. Presumably Will stayed in his hiding spot and then began swimming to the island when the ship arrived but before it submerged.

It is correct that Jack doesn't want the heart killed since then nobody would be able to control the kraken and he needs Jones to call it off first.

I missed it the first time but Barbossa was at Tia Dalma's place the first time we visit (with Jack and Will, not at the end of the movie). After the monkey is released it runs into the other room and sits on the end of a bed upon which you can see Barbossa's booted feet.

The pendant that Jack steals from Tia Dalma's table is identical to the one on Davy Jones's organ. The one that gets triggered during the key theft, turns out to be a music box, and sooths Davy Jones back to sleep. It was never mentioned as in Jack's possession again so I can see it playing a role in the next movie. Also, I believe these pendants were the same shape as part of the design on the chest. So, if relevant, it would appear that Tia Dalma was in possession of something belonging to Davy Jones, or perhaps the woman he loved (maybe they had matching music box pendants).

Overall, I still enjoyed it. The general commentary seems to be that the characters and jokes were worse this time around. I'll have to watch the first one again but to my memory they are pretty much of the same quality and also same tone. So could it be it isn't so much that they are worse it is just difficult for similar material to be funny the second time around? If somehow the movies had been reversed in release order Curse of the Black Pearl would get much of the criticism directed now at Dead Man's Chest?

While waiting for the movie to start I read the current issue of Entertainment Weekly which contained a strongly negative review of the movie by Lisa Schwartzbaum. She admitted up front that she hated the first one as well, so it isn't a surprise to me at all that her dislike would be even worse this time around.

[Moonliner]

it would appear that Tia Dalma was in possession of something belonging to Davy Jones, or perhaps the woman he loved (maybe they had matching music box pendants).

Would it not seem logical that she IS the woman he loved?

I don't have much to add tonight. I plan to pull out the original, watch it and have a cleansing ritual. Perhaps I'll feel more like commenting tomorrow...

[Alex]

That's the possibility I was trying to imply without saying explicitly.

[Moonliner]

That's the possibility I was trying to imply without saying explicitly.

Oh, I see.

Right then. If you are trying to avoid possible spoilers for the third movie then DON'T read the two messages that precede this one.


Hopefully this will be like Indiana Jones and Back to the future. In both those cases the 2nd move was trash and the first and third gold.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I shouted out "throw me a roll" during the dead-on, firefly-filled bayou swamp scene, but I didn't get a laugh.

You got laughs from both of us in this abode!

Oh, re: Jennie's thought about raising the dead being "no problem," I bet that it won't turn out to be easy-peasy. There are always strings attatched when reanimation is involved.

[blueerica]

Ask a Ninja Review of Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBly9_mci90&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b)

^^AWESOME

[Gemini Cricket]

Yes, but was there any product placement in this film?
:D

Ha ha.

I haven't seen it yet. Maybe tonight.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I for one wouldn't think Dead Man's Chest a good film if I'd seen it before Black Pearl. As I've said before, I think the Pearl story construction was tight, the characters more noble and pleasant and funny.

The Chest story was the dictionary definition of convoluted, and the characters cruel, annoying, boring and barely humorous - in no particular order.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh, re: Jennie's thought about raising the dead being "no problem," I bet that it won't turn out to be easy-peasy. There are always strings attatched when reanimation is involved.Well sure, it will take "great pains" but if you can bring anyone back to life with "great pains" then danger and death still don't mean much.

[innerSpaceman]

^ C.P. is right again in this thread.


Great Pains? What, you have to explain it with some more boring expositionary dialogue? Oh, that will be tough. Feh.

They perfected the technique in Dead Man's Chest. There was exposition every 10 minutes about moving the characters around like chess pieces to get them from place to place. Alas, barely enough was expositioned about the actual story points. Bah.


(I'm hating Dead Man's Chest more and more ... but it can't hold a candle to how much I hate what they've done to the ride.)

[Gemini Cricket]

$132 mil for 'Pirates 2' this weekend. New record.
Wow!
:)


(Haven't seen it yet...)

[Moonliner]

Seeing the wreck Disney made of the script (or lack there of) for Dead Mans Chest, it makes me wonder what ever happened to Royce Mathew who was suing Disney for, as I remember, some not so subtle coincidences between a pirate movie he made and the first PoTC. His website seems to have gone blank...

[wendybeth]

We just got back from seeing the movie, and first things first: Damn you, Alex! I waited through interminable credits for a three second spot at the very end of the movie. That made me cranky.

I liked it. It's a good mid-trilogy movie, plain and simple. I didn't love it like the first, but I was prepared for major disappointment and was pleasantly surprised. This is an action flick, and nothing more- I doubt the producers, writers or anyone else were working under the delusion that this was 'art'. On that level, it totally delivers. I was thrilled to see Barbossa again- he was such a great villain that it promises to make the third movie all that much better. Same with Norrington- I kept thinking about how he derided his role in the first movie, calling his character a pompous ass, etc, and longing to get down and scruffy with the rest of them. Well, he does scruffy quite well and I was pleased (for him) that he got to play pirate in this turn.

Tia was cool- looks like she needs to lay off the licorice ice cream, but she was a fun character. I was tempted to yell like iSm during the Bayou scene, but I'm fairly certain few would have understood the call for rolls in our little burg. It was fun to see so many Pirates allusions in this film, but I agree with GC- the dog thing was overkill. Anyway, that's my take on it- but keep in mind my attention was tempered by the disturbing fact that our neighbor next door had just been taken away in an ambulance prior to our leaving for the movie- his wife had come home and discovered him on the floor, with no pulse and his young toddler climbing on him. We phoned as soon as we got home and his MIL said he'd suffered a major heart attack and was in very critical condition. We don't know these people very well, as they are very quiet and reserved, but they are very nice and too young to have to go through this.:(

[Alex]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that the reason people were asking me what the post-credit scene was is because my review said to just skip it and if they were curious to email me and I'd tell them what it was.

Definitely not worth 10 minutes of credit sitting. I was credits anyway so it wasn't a big deal.

[Gemini Cricket]

I haven't read any of the reviews yet so bear with any repitition here in this post.


We saw it last night and I didn't hate it. I didn't love it, either.

Good Stuff:
-I like Johnny Depp's character. It's wonderful seeing him do more of his Jack schtick.
-Davey Jones, the love child of Sebastian and Ursula, is fantastic. One of the best CG characters ever. Bill Nighy is one of my favorite character actors right now. He's superb. I kept wanting to see more and more of him.
-Tom Hollander is a good actor as well. He appeared in 'Pride and Prejudice', too with Knightley. He's a huge presence onscreen for being just 5'5".
-Loved Tia Dalma.
-Liked the three way sword fight.
-Loved the Davey Jones crew. Sea Monkeys gone wrong. Love it.
-Barbossa. Fun ending to the film. I knew it was him when the monkey took a liking to his boots as he was in bed. Is he dead? Was he dead? wtf?
-Shooting the monkey.
-Shooting the crow.
-The film's score is wonderful.

Bad Stuff:
-They could have cut the whole cannibal section and it wouldn't have hurt the film. It could have trimmed a half hour off of this lengthy film.
-Orlando Bloom... boring.
-Keira Knightley (I've said it a million times) needs to close her mouth. It doesn't need to be open all the time... especially when she's not saying anything...
-Too much Kraken. It's weird that the Kraken could destroy a ship in 2 seconds or 10 minutes depending on his mood... :D
-The heart controls the Kraken as does the plunger thing on the ship?
-Shell Head guy... wtf?
-There were too many 'remember this folks?' moments in this film that referred to the first one. Sequelitis. That and too many 'ta-da remember me from the first film' moments. Bleh.
-Film was tooooo long.
-Sparrow as a love interest? Creepy.
-What happened to the African American lady who was on Jack's crew?
-Compass shenanigans. Confusing.
-Why didn't DJ keep his heart with him?
-Too many rum jokes.
-No 'Yo Ho Yo Ho' song in this one. Bad director. :D

[Moonliner]

-The heart controls the Kraken as does the plunger thing on the ship?


I believe the idea is that the "heart" controls the guy (davey) that controls the Kraken.

[Gemini Cricket]

I believe the idea is that the "heart" controls the guy (davey) that controls the Kraken.
Ah.

I don't know why, but that reminded me of a quote:
Miss Scarlet: Why would he want to kill you in public?
Wadsworth: I think she meant he threatened, in public, to kill her.
:D

[Kevy Baby]

$132 million - a new record for an opening weekend

[Moonliner]

$132 million - a new record for an opening weekend

I wonder, does anyone keep track of the biggest DROP in sales from opening weekend to the next? Do you think Disney released it on sooooo many screens because they knew they had a bomb and wanted to cash in as quickly as possible before word spread?

[Gemini Cricket]

That's a good question. Although, the demand for this one was pretty high.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think they have a bomb. I think general word of mouth is good, and it's simply the discriminating, tasteful and intelligent word of mouth Lotwise that is bad.

(Professional movie critic word seems to be bad, too ... and that's not going to affect the generally good word of mouth either)

[flippyshark]

What's the story behind "throw me a roll?" Just hazarding a guess, is this something people shout out to Blue Bayou diners as they cruise by in their boats? Are there people here guilty of such shenanigans, and if so, did it work?

[Moonliner]

Oh, and given that old Davey is apparently cheating death as opposed to being undead, exactly how does the term "Dead mans chest" apply as the title anyway?



and how did that drink icon get up there as the subject? :confused:

[Gemini Cricket]

Something I missed...

Swann handcuffs Jack to the ship? Why? Didn't he just return Han Solo style and helped save them?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Something I missed...

Swann handcuffs Jack to the ship? Why? Didn't he just return Han Solo style and helped save them?I was going to say "because she knew the Kraken would follow him if he came along"...but then it ocurred to me that it wasn't exactly following him as he started to row away. Hmmmm....

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Something I missed...

Swann handcuffs Jack to the ship? Why? Didn't he just return Han Solo style and helped save them?

I though it was because the Kraken was after Jack and Jack alone-- and since the Kraken doesn't seem to be ALL that bright, would probably not have gone after Jack's rowboat (but WOULD go after the Pearl.) If Jack alone was on the Pearl, the Kraken would have had no reason to go after the rest of the crew. If Jack loaded them on the rowboat and boarded with them (as I suspect he was going to do) then the Pearl AND the rowboat would have been attacked once Davy Jones realized Sparrow wasn't onboard the sunken Pearl.

Clear as mud? Yep.

I too was befuddled by the implied Jack/Elizabeth. Ecch.

[Gemini Cricket]

Clear as coffee... er... rum.
:D

[Alex]

The kraken doesn't seem to be very discriminating. After all, the first boat we see it destroy was simply in possession of Jack's hat.

The Top 214 All-Time Leaders for Biggest Drop In Second Weekend Box Office as Percentage of First Weekend Box Office (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/drops.htm).

#1 for a movie that made more than $50 million its first weekend is Hulk (40th overall) which dropped 70% the next weekend. That is powerfully bad word of mouth. #2 (72nd overall) for films over $50 million is X-Men: The Last Stand which dropped 66%. #3 (132nd) is 2 Fast 2 Furious. #4 (140th) is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

If you're watching the box office game is that PotC:DCM will probably pass Superman Returns in overall box office after today doing in 4 days what that movie did in 12. Superman's 58% second-weekend drop will not get it onto the list above.

[scaeagles]

What a great listing. Fun to read. Thanks, Alex.

[Mary Blairiffic]

I liked it. I wasn't blown away, but really enjoyed it.

Capt. Jack -- not as many funny moments, but still a delight and sexy as all spit. His entrance is creepy and brilliant and funny all at the same time.

Those Pretty British Kids -- felt like there was even more of a storyline for them, although they're rarely together in the film. And Keira's got moxie!

Davy Jones -- stole the show for me. Bill Nighy acted so believably through what has to be the most original use of CGI and make-up I've ever seen.

The Flying Dutchman -- I kept thinking, "How can they incorporate THIS into the ride?!" Flippin' awesome.

Make-up, Special Effects, Art Direction: ALL must be nominated for Oscar, or else the Academy should meet the fate of many of Davy Jones's victims.

Hoodoo -- I really liked how they incorporated this into the story. I hope they'll continue using this through the 3rd installment. Loved the Blue Bayou and kept listening for the banjo, but knew it wouldn't be there.

My only negative comment is that #2 felt like a warm-up in some ways to the third and final installment. I know they filmed 2 and 3 at the same time, so this sorta makes sense. But I left with a feeling that I should be able to tune in tomorrow to see the next episode. Instead I'll have to wait at least a year, so that made me poopy.

All in all, if you weigh a little less Johnny vs. a whole lotta Davy Jones and company, it makes for a film just as good as the first.

Oh -- and the kraken.

I am witlessly afraid of Monstro. I'm afeared of any big underwater creature who might swallow my whole house. I needed to take many deep breaths when the kraken reared its tentacles. :eek:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

What's the story behind "throw me a roll?" Just hazarding a guess, is this something people shout out to Blue Bayou diners as they cruise by in their boats? Are there people here guilty of such shenanigans, and if so, did it work?Yes, quite the common line among our crew of ill-repute as we make way past the bayou. No, it never works, though one of these days we'll have to float past while someone we know is having dinner at the water's edge...that could be fun.

[Alex]

Instead I'll have to wait at least a year, so that made me poopy.

Only 11 months. They've decided to open At World's End over Memorial Day weekend.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Going back to Alex's proposal that it's simply the repetition of the same style vs. an actual change/drop in quality that those of us who don't like it are perceiving...I heartily disagree. While I think I would have disliked Dead Man's Chest less if it were the first installment, I never would have liked it as much as I like the actual first movie. There is a qualitative difference between the two that goes beyond a lack of newness. Punchlines instead of humor. Plot, instead of storytelling. Charicatures instead of characters. And an overall theory of "bigger/more must be better".

[Mary Blairiffic]

Number Three opens Memorial Day weekend '07? Oh goodie. Thanks for letting me know, Alex!

[€uroMeinke]

What's the story behind "throw me a roll?" Just hazarding a guess, is this something people shout out to Blue Bayou diners as they cruise by in their boats? Are there people here guilty of such shenanigans, and if so, did it work?

Never got a roll, but once after dinning at the Blue Bayuex, we saw our waiter and called for more dabloons, which he came and tossed down to us from the bridge.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

NOT using spoiler tags...

It was disappointing, too plot-oriented, not as beautifully filmed, and repeated too many of the first movie's brilliant jokes. But I enjoyed myself. Had a good time. And as a 2.5 hour preview for the third movie, I AM still looking forward to it. I have a feeling, once the first wave of disappointment has run its course, I'll enjoy it upon second viewing. Expectations for this movie were awfully high, after all.

I LOVED Bill Nighy and his Davey Jones character. And the Cracken (sp?) is a great monster, but it's too bad that its fight with the Black Pearl wasn't the first time we see the monster in full. The teaser, where it cracks the first ship into the water, as if it just sucks it in, was scary. And then the second battle where we see the monster revealed is great. But you go for a climax that includes that very same kind of battle, and it loses it's impact. That was a problem. (Though I wouldn't trade it in, since I totally loved the image of Sparrow running into it headlong. That was fantastic.)

I didn't really mind the film being darker than the first, and what I mean by darker is showing some more of Sparrow's true colors. I don't really find it all that hard to believe that he would sacrifice a friend. Sets up his redemption, anyhow. I am totally into the love triange and am not embarrassed to admit it. I continue to dig Captain Norrington (liked what they did with him). I like that the compass that shows what your heart wants the most seems to point to Sparrow (when Elizabeth holds it). Because I don't think it is JUST Jack that it's pointing to; it's her freedom. I think she'd take a life on the high seas over tea in a parlor room any day of the week. And when she said, "I am so ready to be married," I'm pretty sure she was talking about the beast with two backs. J. Sparrow seemed pretty sure, as well. Heh.

Sparrow represents all she secretly desires, the foil being that he's still capable of great cowardice and disloyalty...Until, of course, he comes back. And god bless the way that scene was shot, with the low angle, the sun beaming down and her all curled up around his legs. Hah!

She's then figured out what the Cracken really wants, and she condems him for it. That was a nice twist, I think. And if SHE is what he wants most in the world (his return to the ship, we assume, is based on the compass pointing her way, or the Pearl's, way), it seems likely that he fell in love with her the moment she shackled him to the mast. Calling her a pirate, after all, was probably the biggest compliment he could bestow on a women.

And since Will was always, to me, the most boring character (though I *like* him), him getting a bit of the shaft in the sequel didn't really bother me all that much.

I'm surprised by anyone who wasn't at least expecting a love triangle to develop. There was no way they were going to ignore the possibility of at least an attraction over the course of three movies, and there was - IMO - enough chemistry between Depp and Knightley (even in the first one) to justify exploring their potential. And it's easy enough for me to enjoy the flirtation, since I *don't* see that kind of chemistry between her and Bloom. And he's the less interesting character to watch.

Then Geoffrey Rush, who I love, gets the last scene. I figured it'd be him when I saw the man's boots in the bayou hut. (Loved that nab from the ride.) I figured he would survive by the monkey stealing the treasure again. At the end of the first movie, all the treasure is returned so the curse is broken. If someone else comes along to steal the treasure, only they'd be cursed. So if the monkey took a coin and gave it to a dying...dying...very nearly fully dead Barbossa, he could easily be made immortal again. His wounds would heal. And then he'd just have to return the small amount of coinage he and the monkey had. Though it appears the monkey got away with a coin anyway. I assume, apple-bite and all, that Barbossa is mortal this time around. So, YAY!

As for the third movie, I did hear one thing (not content specific, but I'll use spoiler tags):

I read somewhere that the ending of the third movie is so shocking, the audience will be begging for more movies (and the possibility for more has been left open). I can't really speculate what that will mean, but I do wonder if Elizabeth will go off to become a pirate in her own right. It would be a way to leave the triange unresolved...

[Alex]

What happens is that Jack goes completely insane, traps Elizabeth in his web and then tries to convince her to eat Will's brain.

[Moonliner]

I just hope they don't resort to convoluted improbabilities in the third movie:

OK, Monkey takes the coin at the end of BP. Monkey gives coin to Barbosa in time to save him. Barbosa returns the coin to end the curse a second time leaving him both whole and human. Monkey takes another coin again so it's cursed. Jack then manages to separate the coin from the Monkey without ever touching it. However just before battle with the Kraken, he pulls it out of a pouch and grips it tightly in his fist for his charge into the Kraken. The Kraken then chews up Jack and eventually in the course of nature expells Jack's parts which then regrow. However the coin is still logged inside the innards of the beast so that it now "owns" the coin. We then have an undead Kraken and Jack has to figure out a way to get the coin back from said beastie. That would suck.

Ohh and on second thought it would not work anyway. In order to have the curse you have to remove the gold from the chest yourself. Nevermind.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Next summer is going to be insane.

Pirates 3. Spider-Man 3. Shrek 3. Potter 5. And I'm sure there'll be more.

[Not Afraid]

Next summer is going to be insane.

Pirates 3. Spider-Man 3. Shrek 3. Potter 5. And I'm sure there'll be more.

What's wrong with that list? Where are the 1's?

[Alex]

And for only one of those movies in that list did I like the iteration preceding the one next summer.

Spider-Man 2 - yawn but ok.
Shrek 2 - boring but pretty.
Potter 4 - horrible (had all the flaws, plus more, that people here are complianing about in DMC but because you all have the book to provide expository you're happy with it)

Over the summer there are also Ocean's 13, Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer, The Bourne Ultimatum, Alien vs. Predator 2, Evan Almighty (a sequel to Bruce Almighty featuring the Steve Carell character) and Rush Hour 3.

Then there are big screen adaptations of previous properties like The Simpsons Movie, Underdog, and Transformers.

I'm sure there will be plenty of original releases as well, we just don't usually know about them a year in advance.

[scaeagles]

Evan Almighty? Interesting. I have no love/hate thoughts for Bruce Almighty, except to say that the scene where Steve Carell is anchoring for the first time and Jim Carrey is making him babble makes me laugh so freakingly hard.

[Alex]

Yeah. It is hard to find any examples of a straight-comedy sequel being much good. But Carell was so good in The 40-Year-Old Virgin and I hear he is wonderful in Little Miss Sunshine that I'm willing to give him a chance.

[wendybeth]

I just have to say that the nearly the entire audience laughed when they saw the trailer for 'Transformers'. Such a dramatic buildup, and then....Transformers!!!! :D

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Yeah. It is hard to find any examples of a straight-comedy sequel being much good. But Carell was so good in The 40-Year-Old Virgin and I hear he is wonderful in Little Miss Sunshine that I'm willing to give him a chance.

He's brilliant in NBC's The Office, as well.

[Alex]

That's true, but I never assume that brilliant on TV means brilliant in movies.

[wendybeth]

I have a confession to make: I actually want to see the new Will Ferral movie. (Talageda Nights? The Ballad of Ricky-Bob? I forget the name, but he plays a racecar driver).

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I have a confession to make: I actually want to see the new Will Ferral movie. (Talageda Nights? The Ballad of Ricky-Bob? I forget the name, but he plays a racecar driver).

I have HIGH hopes. Worked on the website for this. The script was LOL funny. And though I haven't seen the movie, I've listened to the audio track for it and it's hysterical. I really can't wait!

[wendybeth]

The trailer looked hilarious.:D

[BarTopDancer]

I just have to say that the nearly the entire audience laughed when they saw the trailer for 'Transformers'. Such a dramatic buildup, and then....Transformers!!!! :D

Our audience cheered. I admit it. I did too. Transformers. More than meets the eye. Transformers. Robots in disguise. :D I so thought it was for a horror movie.

I think I am going to see DMC again. This time I will not be waiting for the after-credits stuff. I think that totally ruined it for me. I missed some stuff the first time around (Barbossas boots mainly). I did love that the final shot was of Barbossa eating an apple. I highly doubt I'll come back loving it, but I may like it more than I do now.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

F.ck Barbossa. He's dead. ;)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

The trailer looked hilarious.:D

You should play the "Sign This" game. You may recognize some familiar faces! Also, it's pretty darned amusing.

[innerSpaceman]

That was the greeniest, green apple I've ever seen. A magic apple if ever there was (since it, um, magically appeared in Barbossa's hand as he died, even though he'd spent the last hour sword fighting).


I may be pissed at Barbossa's ressurection, but it is the only element I'm excited about for the third film. Fu ck Davy Jones is what I say. Cool looking CG character, but I can't get any feeling from that nearly as much as I can from a real face performance. Sorry, just can't.


I'm intrigued by the concept of Sparrow revealing more of his true nature in being such a pathetic coward. That may be so, but how does it make me want to see any more of him? I took such a dislike to him and to E. Swann because of the nasty, cruel actions they took that my affection for their characters has dried up.

Jeez, Geoffrey Rush is literally the only thing I'm looking forward to the third movie about.


I think I will see Dead Man's Chest again, though. It had some fun stuff. Now that I know all about its clumsy overplotting and mythological reliance and art/effects direction-driven story choices and less artful dialogue and big-is-more silly setpieces halfheartedly realized ... well, I just may be able to enjoy it on its own terms of half-baked blockbusterhood.

[Alex]

I was reading an interview with the screen writers and they felt pretty strongly that they hadn't changed the Sparrow character with his actions in this movie. Nor do they fele they "revealed" any new element to his character in this movie. Simply that in the first movie the goals of Sparrow, Swann, and Turner were mostly in synch and in this movie they are most decidedly not.

Whether they are correct or not is certainly debatable, but that is their point of view on it.

[wendybeth]

I don't think they have changed him- some time has passed, and the Captain has other things going on, like his survival. He is every bit the same character, and that might be the problem. The other characters have changed, some a great deal (Norrington) and the Captain remains the same self-centered, staggering scoundrel that he was in the first movie. Maybe they needed to change him a bit, or maybe they have and we just don't realise it yet.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I was reading an interview with the screen writers and they felt pretty strongly that they hadn't changed the Sparrow character with his actions in this movie. Nor do they fele they "revealed" any new element to his character in this movie. Simply that in the first movie the goals of Sparrow, Swann, and Turner were mostly in synch and in this movie they are most decidedly not.

Whether they are correct or not is certainly debatable, but that is their point of view on it.

I agree with them, actually. I don't think they messed with Sparrow's characterization, or any other's for that matter.

He's a friggin' pirate. They've glossed pirates up enough to make them likeable, but if your'e not going to portray them as self-serving, I might as well be watching Master and Commander. I can easily believe in a fictional character who is, on some level, a good man, but who is also capable of great cowardice. So long as he, in the end, does the right/good thing, he's a libertine worth watching.

Same goes with Swann. I actually like what they did with her character, because it's in line with her longstanding fascination with pirates, and with her overwhelming desire to not be locked in gilded cages. And I can understand her not wanting to lose her life, or the crews lives, and deciding to sacrifice the pirate she's got the lusties for since, after all, hes' the one responsible for getting them into these messes in the first place.

I'm very curious to see what will happen in the next film. My guess is more betrayals, more questioned loyalties, and ultimately an alliance formed to save themselves and those they care about. This film is more of a moral quagmire than the first, which may hurt the characters likeability a bit for some, but I'd be even more bored watching the three get along perfectly well for two movies.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, but I feel their quarrels and backstabbing are so transparently designed to create an artificial arc.

And I don't mind Sparrow being a bit of a coward, but he's so yellow-bellied that I cannot buy him as a pirate captain. He's simply Jack Sparrow to me now ... no matter how much he protests the lack of his honorific title to which I feel he is no longer entitled.


And I don't know why Elizabeth thinks the Kraken is after Jack. The ship she was on that was Krackenattacked didn't even have so much as his hat aboard. Either way, condemning him to death by her own hand was a nastiness I simply could not swallow.


And I have to question why the screenwriters chose to have a two-and-half hour follow-up movie that revealed nothing new about the main character. What frelling hacks! Not that the film they scripted would have me suspect otherwise, but jeeeez!

[Alex]

Well, Elizabeth doesn't knowthe second kraken attack happened so it couldn't well argue against her understanding of what the kraken is after

[Moonliner]

I've been thinking about Barbosa coming back and the line from the first movie that went something like:

A ship captained by a man so evil that hell itself spat him back out.


Hummm....

[innerSpaceman]

Ah, gotcha. Truly, I found the plot confusing. I had not remembered that she was already gone when that happened.

I loathe the fact that I only want to see this again so I can hope to appreciate it without being completely confused about what's going on.

[Moonliner]

Well, Elizabeth doesn't knowthe second kraken attack happened so it couldn't well argue against her understanding of what the kraken is after


I think the Kraken was a bit put upon. The order to track down and kill Jack was more of a general command and secondary to the more immdiate "Sink THAT ship" order from the big plunger thingy. Which is why the beasty ignored Jack in the row boat and went after the pearl instead.

[Alex]

I loathe the fact that I only want to see this again so I can hope to appreciate it without being completely confused about what's going on.

I can understand, even if I don't find they sway me, many of the complaints about this movie. But the one I don't get is that it is complicated. The whys may be underexplained (or overexplained as it is being both criticized in this thread for not enough plot and too much plot) but the whats and whens and wheres seem very straightforward to me.

If you find this complicated anything that remotely attempts non-linear narrative must leave you curled in a ball. Since I know that isn't true, perhaps it isn't so much that the movie is complicated as that since you weren't entertained you don't care enough to keep track.

[BarTopDancer]

I've been thinking about Barbosa coming back and the line from the first movie that went something like:

A ship captained by a man so evil that hell itself spat him back out.


Hummm....

Are you thinking that comment was about Barbossa or Davey Jones?

[Alex]

The kraken attacks do seem to be a poorly thought-out portion of the script.

Initially it is said that the kraken will persue whoever has the black mark, which Bootstrap Bill then puts on Jack. So the kraken goes off and attacks the ship where his has ended up and apparently without a specific plunger call to arms. When Jack offers the 100 souls, Davy Jones's removes the mark for the three days he is given. The second attack happens
during this period so it is fine to assume that the kraken wasn't in persuit of Jack and available for a specific call to arms. Then when Jack is about to kill Elizabeth the time runs out and the mark returns. No kraken attack between then arrival at the island with the chest. When they get back to the Black Pearl and set sail they are apparently in deep enough waters for the kraken to attack but it does not do so until the plunger of doom and then it attacks immediately so it was in the area.

[wendybeth]

Are you thinking that comment was about Barbossa or Davey Jones?

The comment was supposed to be about Barbossa, was it not?

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

And I don't know why Elizabeth thinks the Kraken is after Jack. The ship she was on that was Krackenattacked didn't even have so much as his hat aboard. Either way, condemning him to death by her own hand was a nastiness I simply could not swallow.

I think she overheard him say, on the island where the chest was buried, that he couldn't allow Will to stab the heart, because dead, Davy Jones would not be able to call off the [Kraken's] hunt. I assumed Elizabeth put two and two together.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

The kraken attacks do seem to be a poorly thought-out portion of the script.

Hmm. This is how I saw it:

Sparrow is marked. The mark, basically, shows the claim that Davy Jones has over him. Either Jack returns to the Flying Dutchman to serve 100 years, or Jones sends the Kraken to destroy him. Jack chooses to flee, so Kraken it is. He manges to outsmart the beast and make it to land before the attack, and the beast instead attacks a ship that was in the last known location of the Pearl, and was also carrying one of Sparrow's artifacts.

The mark is then temporarily removed from Sparrow's hand after a second bargain is struck.

The next time the Kraken attacks, it's target is Will Turner, not Jack Sparrow.

The mark returns, Jack hasn't brought the 100 souls he promised, so the Kraken is once again summoned to attack the Pearl.

I don't think the Kraken is following the mark so much as a general order to destroy whatever ship Jack Sparrow is othought to be on. The first attack featured a boat that was sailing in waters near to the Pearl's last known location. The second attack, it was being ordered to attack a different ship. The third, it was going after the Pearl, where Sparrow was thought to be. (Turner, the key thief, too.) It probably would have gone after the row boat after taking down the Pearl, but obviously Sparrow was hoping to make it to the shallows before the Pearl was completely destroyed.

[Moonliner]

The comment was supposed to be about Barbossa, was it not?

Open to interpretation say I, but Barbosa it may well be.

Was Davey ever dead? From what I remember in the movie he's just cheating death for the time being and the whole fish DNA mixing is never explained in the slightest.

[Moonliner]

Hmm. This is how I saw it:

Sparrow is marked. The mark, basically, shows the claim that Davy Jones has over him. Either Jack returns to the Flying Dutchman to serve 100 years, or Jones sends the Kraken to destroy him. Jack chooses to flee, so Kraken it is. He manges to outsmart the beast and make it to land before the attack, and the beast instead attacks a ship that was in the last known location of the Pearl, and was also carrying one of Sparrow's artifacts.

The mark is then temporarily removed from Sparrow's hand after a second bargain is struck.

The next time the Kraken attacks, it's target is Will Turner, not Jack Sparrow.

The mark returns, Jack hasn't brought the 100 souls he promised, so the Kraken is once again summoned to attack the Pearl.

I don't think the Kraken is following the mark so much as a general order to destroy whatever ship Jack Sparrow is othought to be on. The first attack featured a boat that was sailing in waters near to the Pearl's last known location. The second attack, it was being ordered to attack a different ship. The third, it was going after the Pearl, where Sparrow was thought to be. (Turner, the key thief, too.) It probably would have gone after the row boat after taking down the Pearl, but obviously Sparrow was hoping to make it to the shallows before the Pearl was completely destroyed.

And that's supposed to make a fun movie? Sounds more like the instructions on some of the tax forms I have to fill out...


Note: That's a dig at the screenwritters and NOT at your interpretaion of said script.

[Ghoulish Delight]

But the one I don't get is that it is complicated. iSm apparantly isn't the only one who noticed, seeing as the writers felt the need to add beyond blatant exposition via R2 and 3PO (or whatever their names are) recapping why the 3-way wheel-o-melodrama scene was taking place (which, incidentally, was the point I thought needed the least explanation).

I don't know if "complicated" is the term I'd use. "Convoluted" seems more accurate. It seemed like they were so keen to create what they thought was a clever, interwoven plot that they let things like character motivation slip (save for the ex Admiral). They would have done better had they gone more staright-forward with the plot and concentrated on continuing to develop the characters, rather than have them spout one-liners.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

And that's supposed to make a fun movie? Sounds more like the instructions on some of the tax forms I have to fill out...


Note: That's a dig at the screenwritters and NOT at your interpretaion of said script.

Well, I think my interpretation did read like an instructional manual, so I wouldn't be offended even if you were. It didn't feel like that to me when watching it. My only problem with the Kraken was its overuse. It should have only appeared in the teaser scene, when it first sucks in the boat, and in the climax. Especially since we're probably in for a final battle in which it's killed. Kraken, Kraken, too much Kraken. It's appearances in the film, however, made sense to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

All part of the "If one is good, 3 is better!" philosophy of the whole movie.

[Alex]

iSm apparantly isn't the only one who noticed, seeing as the writers felt the need to add beyond blatant exposition via R2 and 3PO (or whatever their names are) recapping why the 3-way wheel-o-melodrama scene was taking place (which, incidentally, was the point I thought needed the least explanation).

I don't see that as being there for exposition so much as for a joke. But maybe people really were confused, I don't know. I though the character motivations were all pretty clear and straightforward so I guess it comes down to just disagreeing.

One thing, in discussing Jack's character is that while he sacrificed Will to Davy Jones he also showed an expectation that Will would be able to get the key. As soon as Will was on the Flying Dutchman Jack switched off to persue the chest instead of the key. Similarly, he showed faith that Will would be able to lead an escape of the imprisoned crew and help him escape the cannibal island.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

All part of the "If one is good, 3 is better!" philosophy of the whole movie.

Which was, on the whole, my only big problem with the movie. That, and the dialogue wasn't as witty. But the overall plot and character development I liked quite alot, which puts me in the minority, I guess.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't see that as being there for exposition so much as for a joke. But maybe people really were confused, I don't know. I though the character motivations were all pretty clear and straightforward so I guess it comes down to just disagreeing.I personally didn't think it was particularly confusing either...but I can see how people might. They structured it as if it were more complicated than it was (or perhaps as if the writers thought it was more complicated/clever than it was), which did make me at least for a moment start to second guess and overthink, trying to figure out a twist that either I'd missed or might be forthcoming. All of which just becomes distracting and increases the chance of missing some bit here or there.

[Alex]

I'm with you Eliza.

For once I'm on the popular side (if not critically popular side) of a massive box office success. So I'm going to go with the flow of being among the unwashed masses for once.

Looking at the list of Top Opening Weeks (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weeks.htm) of all time (Pirates needs another $21 today and tomorrow, which it will likel get, to top the list) there are only two that I liked (and a third that I admired but couldn't really get into) in the top 20.

[wendybeth]

Open to interpretation say I, but Barbosa it may well be.

Was Davey ever dead? From what I remember in the movie he's just cheating death for the time being and the whole fish DNA mixing is never explained in the slightest.



Lol- did you have any problems with the undead crew concept of the first movie? ;) I believe Davey was cheating death as well, as the destruction of his heart meant his own demise. (Could be wrong, but that's how I understood it).

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I for one had problems with the undead crew of the first movie. It's why I didn't like the film the first time I saw it. I thought the undead crew was a gay concept inserted simply to get pirate skeletons into the mix, and thus be twistedly reminiscent of the ride on which they were laying false claim to be inspired by.

I was not keen on the supernatural element. But then I remembered that the ride itself has a cursed treasure with a supernatural element, and all was forgiven in my heart. I still think it's retarded that the movie curse creates a literal skeleton crew, rather than have the crew become zombies that gradually skeletize post-mortem.

The pic was so spirited and fun that I acquiessed to its chosen conceipt.


This time, it's the mythological aspect that I don't like at all. Too much sea beastie and Davy Jones and unexplained squid crew ... and not enough damnable PIRACY.

[wendybeth]

So, you're saying that you are disinclined to acquiesce this time?;)

[Kevy Baby]

Finally saw it last night.

It was a bad movie.

And I enjoyed it very much.

Some of the holes annoyed me tremendously. The one that really sticks out in my mind was when they were having the three-way sword fight. It took place on old buildings that were so old that the STONE was crumblng away. Yet a THATCH roof was still intact that was able to support three men in a sword fight?!?

WTF?

[Kevy Baby]

Oh...

and the witch woman was hot!

[AllyOops!]

My boyfriend & I saw it last night. Sold out, seated in the front row! My eyes looked like Kaa's halfway through the trailers. As for the movie?

I loved it. How do you like them doubloons? :D

Still, there were a few elements that I didn't exactly love (and many of you have mentioned some of these elements! Props to you!)

1.) *Elizabeth Swann's transformation. She was defending Jack ("CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow!) in the very beginning, and by the end, she had turned sinister. However, maybe it was the turn Jack had predicted..her curiosity. Still, I didn't see her sinking to that level.

2.) *The Kraken (I so want to spell it Crackin'. Like snappin' & poppin'). While enjoyable to watch, it soon became very Harryhausen. While I totally dig on & love the works of Ray Harryhausen (Jason & The Argonauts ROCKS) this just didn't seem to work afterwhile.

3.)*The open ending. It was too, too open. I sat there waiting for more, and felt cheated. However, if the trick is to leave me wanting resolution to the point of fighting the throngs of equally excited ticket-buying buccaneers for the next installement then ,why yes, the trick worked quite well.

Wait..was I supposed to spoiler tag these? Have we abandoned tags? Have we all seen the flick? Am I just a no spoiler-tag respecting, thoughtless dick? Um, don't answer.... :p ;)

[Ponine]

3.)*The open ending. It was too, too open. I sat there waiting for more, and felt cheated. However, if the trick is to leave me wanting resolution to the point of fighting the throngs of equally excited ticket-buying buccaneers for the next installement then ,why yes, the trick worked quite well.

the EW review (or CNN) was very clear that this movie felt like the middle of a trilogy, there was no concise ending, no wrap ups to the story... just a hang. I think this must be one of the many drawbacks to making two movies at once.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Well, I for one had problems with the undead crew of the first movie. It's why I didn't like the film the first time I saw it. I thought the undead crew was a gay concept inserted simply to get pirate skeletons into the mix, and thus be twistedly reminiscent of the ride on which they were laying false claim to be inspired by.

I was not keen on the supernatural element. But then I remembered that the ride itself has a cursed treasure with a supernatural element, and all was forgiven in my heart. I still think it's retarded that the movie curse creates a literal skeleton crew, rather than have the crew become zombies that gradually skeletize post-mortem.

The pic was so spirited and fun that I acquiessed to its chosen conceipt.


This time, it's the mythological aspect that I don't like at all. Too much sea beastie and Davy Jones and unexplained squid crew ... and not enough damnable PIRACY.

Ah, see, we are completely at odds then. It's the supernatural and mythological backbones that drew me to these movies in the first place. So I revel in the skeletons and sea creatures (which are, IMO, also explained by the crews damnation. I read it as an aquatic version of Dante's Inferno, and the more time you serve the worse off you are. You curse your body and soul when you become a member of Davy Jones' crew. Your transformed by the sea you love, and your transformed into a freak - a hybird of human and sea life. I totally love that.

[€uroMeinke]

I also liked the fish crew, but I was a bit dissappointed about Davy Jones, he just didn't seem demonic/Mephisto enough for me. It seemd to easy to get the key while he was sleeping - there needed to be some other special circumstances, an enchantment to put him under, or bettter yet tricking the devil himself, though that's a better job for Captain Jack Sparrow, than sweat dull Will Turner...

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I also liked the fish crew, but I was a bit dissappointed about Davy Jones, he just didn't seem demonic/Mephisto enough for me. It seemd to easy to get the key while he was sleeping - there needed to be some other special circumstances, an enchantment to put him under, or bettter yet tricking the devil himself, though that's a better job for Captain Jack Sparrow, than sweat dull Will Turner...

I'm sure Sparrow will find a way to cheat the devil. I do love that he had to make a deal with a devil to get his precious Pearl in the first place.

I'm a huge fan of Nighy's, so maybe I'm just in the camp that he can do no wrong. I loved his portrayal of the character, who does seem both evil *and* tragic. The musical locket that was playing seemed enchantment enough for me. Talks of weddings and lovers (from Sparrow's mouth, no less), seemed to put in him a vulnerable state. I got the feeling he didn't usually allow himself to be caught so unawares.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm with € on Jones ... none too Mephisto for my tastes. And even allowing for the sillyness of this film, stealing the key was absurd.

I just want pirates, not supernatural shenanigans. In the ride, there may be a curse ... but the pirates are not the ones affected by it. The ride depicts true-life pirate adventures (albeit cleaned up to delightful effect - - heheh, a happy townburning!). The curse happens to the audience.

If there were zombies and sea monsters in Walt's attraction, I daresay the silliness of it would have affected its popularity adversely.

Sure, they were wise to include creepy skeletons. Creepiness sure, silliness, no. Not that the comedy in the attraction isn't silly - - - it surely is. The tone goes from mysterious to lighthearted and back & forth from there. But there's no silly gimmicks in the depiction of pirate activities to detract from the actual appeal of pirates, real pirates, that the enjoyment of the ride is predicated on.

I'm sorry the film series had to go more gimmicky. They wanted their skeletons, so zombies it was. Instant skeletal zombies at that.




I'm hardly surprised the impulse I disliked in the first movie was amplified times seven in the sequels. That's what sequels are for: to accentuate all that is crappy and, by their bad example, demonstrate what a good movie really is.

"Dead Man's Chest" fulfills its purpose well.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

The problem with a movie about "real pirtes" is that it's not much fun watching men actually rape, pillage, die of scurvy, etc. So inserting curses, skeletons and sea creature hybrids as foes the pirates must battle against is preferable to watching them rape and pillage for 2.5 hours, at least for me.

Plus, I love fantasy. So I'm happy that's the route these films have taken.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, most people hated it ... but I'm a big fan of Roman Polanski's "Pirates" with Walter Matthau. Nothing but wall-to-wall piracy, and making light of it in the same successful way that Walt Disney did. I think that movie's a hoot, and I would have loved Curse o' the Pearl just as much, perhaps more, if they'd left the instant-zombies out.


Just one man's opinion. I like pirates, I think they're fun and interesting. No embellishment needed for one of history's most outlandish elements.

[innerSpaceman]

P.S. - I'm watching Black Pearl right now, to wash the taste of DMC out of my eyes. It's not doing a very good job of it.

Now that my mind's on the stupidity of the Aztec Gold curse, I find I can get over the instant skeletization, but NOT the instant raggediness and tatterization of clothing. WTF? Stupid, stupid, frelling stupid.


The action, on the other hand, is spirited and exaggerated without being stupifyingly absurd. They could well have opted for two more films filled with Errol-Flynnlike derring do. It worked beautifully in the first film. Stooping to shish-ke-bop fruit fights and rolling waterwheel duels was unnecessary sequelitis. Beyond, far beyond, stupid.

[Alex]

Why do you find the nature of magic (which is even more disordered in nature) in the Harry Potter movies to be acceptible and have a problem with a curse that immediately turns you into a zombie skeleton when exposed to moonlight?

Exactly what are the rational rules of magic?

[innerSpaceman]

Ah, but there are very rationale rules of magic in the Harry Potter series, rules that simply are not violated in the films. In fact, it's really quite easy for a film or story to get away with any "rules" of magic they'd like; simply set it up. Explain it with some dialogue or demonstration, and literally anything's possible.

I just think Pirates set up the rules of its curse in a most sloppy and haphazard way. The only dialogue explanation really given is that the moonlight reveals the cursed as they really are. And it is demonstrated that newbies to the curse are instantly skeletons ... and, yes, skeletons with raggedly clothing - the better to see their skelliness. But yeah, if a curse or magic also acts upon your clothing, for effect that is purely show and zero curse, I want that told to me.

Otherwise, it's the rules of cartoon magic where hats stay on no matter what.

In the generally accepted rules of live-action magic ... if, for example, you were shrunk to the size of a sandwich, you'd be left swimming in your suddenly-oversized clothing. In cartoon magic, your clothes are shrunk with you. I don't like cartoon magic mixed in with my live-action magic without so much as a faire thee well.



And while I'm at it ... all through the movie, cursed pirates are shown to recover from bullet holes and knife wounds INSTANTLY. Yet, there's time for a line or two of dialogue and some meaningful glances between the time Barbossa is shot and the time Will drops the coin and his blood into the Aztec treasure chest. I call shenanigans. The magic in this film is poorly explained, has absurdities not reckoned with the audience, and follows its internal rules if and when it wants to.

Perhaps the Pirate Code can be more like guidelines, but magic must not be.

[lashbear]

the EW review (or CNN) was very clear that this movie felt like the middle of a trilogy, there was no concise ending, no wrap ups to the story... just a hang. I think this must be one of the many drawbacks to making two movies at once.

I call it the "Back To The Future Syndrome" :D


...Also, they filmed a lot of it in really shallow turquoise water that's allegedly Kraken-deep ! Water that colour is shallow.

I also have trouble reconciling the fact that the dialogue refers to the fact that the Kraken will attack the person that has the mark, (but it doesn't.)

I was the ONLY person left in the cinema to see the ending. :eek: .....Lashstoat had to run off to the loo cos it was so long. :rolleyes:

Can't wait for the DVD and the bloopers.

[lashbear]

......I was a bit dissappointed about Davy Jones, he just didn't seem demonic/Mephisto enough for me. It seemd to easy to get the key while he was sleeping ...

Looked to me to be no harder than your average game of "Operation" - I wonder if his tentacles light up red if you're trembling too much ? :rolleyes:

[Alex]

But yeah, if a curse or magic also acts upon your clothing, for effect that is purely show and zero curse, I want that told to me.

That really makes no sense. You are shown how the curse works but it is only acceptable if some character looks at the audience and offers a lecture on the mechanics? To me that is like complaining that hyperspace engines are cartoon-physics mixed in with live action physics because Han Solo never pauses to explain how they work.

I also disagree that there is an explained underlying order to the Harry Potter world of magic. Maybe in the books there is, but not in the movies.

But it sounds like you're working yourself back into disliking Curse of the Black Pearl.

[Gemini Cricket]

Was there an explaination during DMC of why all the pirates on DJ's ship are meshed together with sea creatures? I forget.

[Alex]

It was said that over the course of the 100 year oath of service you blend with the sea, eventually ending up like the guy who was just coral attached to a wall of the boat.

[Not Afraid]

I've already stated that I am not too fond of the CGI effects in DMC, but I also find I am rolling my eyes everytime the hammerhead guy is brought up. I think it bothers me so much because it is soooooo out there. The other have attachments of sea creatures but it is concievable the shape of their head remains the same. The hammerhead guy was a cartoon and, each time he appeared, I was taken out of the movie.

I realize I don't see a lot of "fantasy" or "Super hero" films, so I have limited acceptance, but I can't be the only one who felt this way.

Or maybe I can. ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Totally, the hammerhead guy was the most distracting and outlandish of the bunch.

[Gemini Cricket]

To me, Shell Head was more cartoony than Hammerhead Man. But Davey was right on the money for me.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I assumed the hammerhead and sea shell dudes were simply further along in their service, so they didn't bother me at all. I thought the CGI in this was flawless.

[Not Afraid]

To me, Shell Head was more cartoony than Hammerhead Man. But Davey was right on the money for me.

I agree, he was, but he appeared in a "comedic" part, so I didn't really have to take him seriouslt. The hammerhead guy should've been taken seriously. He was supposed to be menancing.

[Alex]

My only problem with hammerhead was that the shark eyes appear non-functional. I kept expecting something that would make use of the fact that he had four-eyes.

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry I only get to respond once a year. Shell guy and HammerheadMan were both way too distracting for my particular tastes.

Going back (sorry) to the Black Pearl curse, I must most forcefully disagree with Alex. The curse is explained by Barbossa as the moon showing how the crew really are. Am I to assume that the crew have no option but to dress in raggedy clothing? They have tons of pirate swag in their hold, but even Babossa cannot buy a new suit?

It's not a matter of what they demonstrated, or that they didn't stop to explain it. They did stop to explain it, but the explanation makes no frelling sense. Raggedy clothes is a cartoon concept we are asked to overlook, and to overlook despite the fact that a main character explained the curse otherwise.


As for the squid crew, the obvious cartoon element is that there's only one Hammerhead and one Seashell guy, etc. Are we to assume that the damnation functions in an elimination fashion? So that if a particular sea creature is already "taken," you are damned to choose someone else to either meld with over time or have on your dodgeball team?

[BarTopDancer]

They explained the morphing as becomming one with the sea. I do wish they had gotten a bit more into how they became one with the sea. Hammerhead dude could breathe on land, and so could Davey, so is it just their outsides that turn into the sea creatures or do their insides slowly become unhuman as well.

[Alex]

It's not a matter of what they demonstrated, or that they didn't stop to explain it. They did stop to explain it, but the explanation makes no frelling sense.

I just don't see the problem here. I also don't see why you have no problem with Superman having infinite strength (which creates infinite tensile strength in the object lifted), and in fact dismiss such complaints as meaningless nitpicking but find this to be some major gaping flaw.

[innerSpaceman]

Superman IS a cartoon. He is a COMIC BOOK character.


Granted, with the sequel, the Pirates of this fuctup Caribbean are being presented in a completey comic book and cartoon manner, in which I have no trouble accepting the likes of HammerheadMan and ShellBoy.

The original was not, imo, presented in those terms. I takes the movie worlds as they are given to me - - admittedly as I interpret them.



I certainly didn't have to wait to sense the tone in Superman. The title warned me of the comic book nature of the film I was about to see.

[Alex]

I see. Being based on a comic book means it is ok for things to make no actual sense. Being based on a theme park ride creates an expectation of physical veracity.

I can't say it works that way for me. But then I still don't see any conflict between the way the curse is described and the way the curse works. So we're just coming from completely different places I guess. Have you worked yourself back into hating the first one yet?

[innerSpaceman]

I still love the first one. And it was no more based on a theme park ride than Schinder's List was.

Jail Keys Dog reference and some pirates do not make the movie based on the Walt Disney attraction. It may have been "inspired by," but I think the only thing they were truly inspired by vis-a-vis the attraction was cashing in on the name recognition.


Nevertheless, basing a movie on the most realistic theme park ride ever created does not telegraph to me as a moviegoer that no rules of physics or logic will be followed.

[Kevy Baby]

Is it just me, or is there WAY too much analysis being made of this movie?

It was (IMO) meant to be a fun Summer movie. It is not meant to be Shindlers List. It is just a light escapist movie fer cryin out loud. Yeah, we can find some reaity flaws (I'm guilty of it), but it just pure silly fun. To have expected anything else is just foolish.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It was (IMO) meant to be a fun Summer movie. It is not meant to be Shindlers List. It is just a light escapist movie fer cryin out loud. Yeah, we can find some reaity flaws (I'm guilty of it), but it just pure silly fun. To have expected anything else is just foolish.The problem is, the first movie was more than that. It had a brain and...well...subtlety is not quite the word. How about craftsmanship. Yeah, craftsmanship. So we KNOW the people who made this film have that ability. For some reason, they decided to not use that ability, and that's disappointing.

[Not Afraid]

Is it just me, or is there WAY too much analysis being made of this movie?

It was (IMO) meant to be a fun Summer movie. It is not meant to be Shindlers List. It is just a light escapist movie fer cryin out loud. Yeah, we can find some reaity flaws (I'm guilty of it), but it just pure silly fun. To have expected anything else is just foolish.

Well, you can have a film of pure silly fun and it can STILL be a great movie. My beef with it was that, while it eas somewhat entertaining for 2 1/2 hours, I really don'e want to see it again.

It's frustrating when you have a vehicle that is proven to work well and you screw it up. There was so much potential for this film and it didn't come close to what it could've been.

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, people are telling me I might enjoy it much better on a second viewing. But that's gonna have to wait for the DVD on Netflix, because I have zero desire to see this movie again right now.

[Alex]

It's frustrating when you have a vehicle that is proven to work well and you screw it up. There was so much potential for this film and it didn't come close to what it could've been.

Maybe that helped me not be disappointed. I did not have high hopes for this movie. In all the history of sequels (to quality movies) there are only a handful that are of approximately the same quality as the first film and only two* that (in my opinion, of course) really surpasses the first - The Empire Strikes Back and Aliens.

So my assumption is that a sequel will be worse than the original. I don't think that Dead Man's Chest is as good as Curse of the Black Pearl but then I wasn't expecting it to be and perhaps as a result this means I am happy with as well as it turned out.


*I also consider Babe: Pig in the City to be vastly superior to the first one but most people look at me like I've a third head when I say that so I keep it my little secret.

[flippyshark]

*I also consider Babe: Pig in the City to be vastly superior to the first one but most people look at me like I've a third head when I say that so I keep it my little secret.

I think Roger Ebert had the same assessment of Babe: Pig In The City. He definitely championed it. (Alas, I never saw it. I'l get to it someday.)

I haven't weighed in on POTC - DMC yet, though I have seen it. My reaction was mixed. I had plenty of fun on a scene by scene level, but it hasn't lived on in my imagination the way the first did. I'm highly likely to go see it again, though.

(edit note - I tried to abbreviate the movie as POTC followed by a colon, and then the letters DMC. Look what happened when I posted that construction - POTC:DMC

[Not Afraid]

I really didn't have any prior expectations, I have just found that, as time goes on, I'm getting more and more disgusted.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

As my earlier rant shows, I was really frustrated by the film. But I totally disagree with iSm (and agree with Alex) about the fantasy aspect. The first movie was a fantasy, and this one is a fantasy.

Seriously, if you watch ANY fantasy movie, there's going to be things that don't make "sense" - and costuming is often the most problematic. I like my skeletal zombies in ratty clothes, thank you. If you want me to muster some sort of explanation, I'd say it has to do with Barbossa's exposition, where he says that nothing satisfies them anymore. They can wear any clothes they want, same way they can eat as much as they want or seek pleasurable company, but the moon shows them for what they really are, clothing included. Yeah, it's a lame explanation, but I'd have to say that it's a lame nitpick as well.

I also liked the sea crew. Hammerhead guy was awesomely freaky. It made sense to me as a pirate's hell.

Anyway, I had no problem with the fantasy elements. It was other stuff that sucked.

[Jazzman]

My sentiments regarding the film pretty much echo iSm to the letter, so I'll just add "ditto" there.

I will add, however, that my biggest disappointment wasn't any particular plot development, character, scene, prop or anything else along those lines. For me the thing that sucked kracken was the lack of anything even remotely resembling originality. When Black Pearl came out, sure it was fun and had great sets and characters which we all fell in love with, but the reason why everyone saw it several times and it became such a huge sleeper hit was because it was something new, something we hadn't seen before. While Hollywood repackages the same three films over and over and releases them again and again, Pirates came out of left field with an all new adventure, fresh and exciting. Now, Dead Man's Chest is released, and we get the same jokes, the same bits and the same everything else from the first film, just repackaged with a different name. I hate that about sequels more than anything, and I had sincerely hoped that the Pirates crew would avoid that trap. But alas, they did not and I'm sure that we'll have to hear more "Why is the rum gone" jokes in the third one as well. I now fear that it's going to turn out much like the Matrix trilogy: one amazing, timeless film and two other flicks that yeah, also happen to have the same characters in them.

:sigh:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I now fear that it's going to turn out much like the Matrix trilogy: Oh, the Matrix, I love that movie. Too bad there weren't any sequels, eh?

[Gemini Cricket]

'Pirates' pulled in $62.2 mil this weekend. That's pretty good! The total is somewhere around $258 mil now... Wow!

[Jazzman]

Oh, the Matrix, I love that movie. Too bad there weren't any sequels, eh?
Exactly. Just like that one Privateering movie with Johnny Depp and that really feminine kid from LoTR. They should really make another one of those too...

:D

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

*I also consider Babe: Pig in the City to be vastly superior to the first one but most people look at me like I've a third head when I say that so I keep it my little secret.

I wouldn't call it vastly superior, but it was certainly brilliant. God, I love that sequel.

[Kevy Baby]

It's frustrating when you have a vehicle that is proven to work well and you screw it up. There was so much potential for this film and it didn't come close to what it could've been.I didn't see much potential for this film, so it lived up to my expectations.

[Kevy Baby]

Maybe that helped me not be disappointed. I did not have high hopes for this movie. In all the history of sequels (to quality movies) there are only a handful that are of approximately the same quality as the first film and only two* that (in my opinion, of course) really surpasses the first - The Empire Strikes Back and Aliens.Lethal Weapon 3 ROCKED!

[Alex]

No, Lethal Weapon 4 Rock'd. Lethal Weapon 2, 3 and 4 Pesci'd.

[mistyisjafo]

I finally saw PotC #2 and I totally enjoyed it. I still wanted more Capt. Jack Sparrow and some of the plot was soggy but otherwise I LOVED it. Give me pirates any day. aRrrgh!:argghh:

[Gemini Cricket]

And the verdict of 'Pirates 2' from the scaeagles family is...

[Kevy Baby]

No, Lethal Weapon 4 Rock'd. Lethal Weapon 2, 3 and 4 Pesci'd.Screw it. I know you don't give a flip about mojo but I'm giving you same anyways

[mousepod]

I have to go back a read the whole thread - I just read the first couple of pages and skipped to the end. It seems to me that most of the first weekend viewers were disappointed.

For the record: I liked it. A lot. I'll post my full review later, but I want to read the rest of the thread first.

[Prudence]

So, we're the last people in the country to see it, but we've seen it.

I don't know what all the fuss was about. It's a perfectly acceptible summer movie. Actually, better than acceptible. I'd watch it again.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ok, I have a question for those that liked it - were you happy with Jack's decisions, and with Bootstrap Bill's patheticness? These are the two things that wrecked it for me.

[Prudence]

what problems did you have with those characters? I can't think of any problems I have with either of them.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

what problems did you have with those characters? I can't think of any problems I have with either of them.Here's my rant. (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=82213#post82213)

[Alex]

I haven't any problem with Bootstrap's patheticness. It's certainly more interesting (to me anyway) than what you envisioned for him.

I also don't have any problem with Captain Jack's behavior. If nothing else it certainly helps shed light on why the first crew of the Black Pearl mutinied and left him to die.

[Prudence]

I don't think there's room for a truly "noble" character among the pirates. They have significant flaws; that's why they're there. I have no issue with Bootstrap Bill being pathetic. I don't consider it a contradiction, either. He's pathetic and he knows it. He knows his own weaknesses. He knows it's not a good life, and he wanted better for his son, but at the same time he knew he couldn't resist it for himself. Seems pretty classic stuff to me.

I also think that serving on Davy Jones's crew has a psychological effect. He's spent years on the crew, he knows he can't escape, and he knows what will eventually happen to him. Despair is mighty discouraging. And I can see why he hasn't had much fire in the ol' belly lately. However, now that he has a glimmer of hope again, he might change a bit for number three.

And I don't see much conflict for Jack Sparrow, either. I wonder if some of his actions were deliberate on the part of the writers. We want Jack to turn out to be the ruffian with the heart of gold, the loveable scamp, the bad boy tamed by love, whatever. And maybe he's just a pirate. A self-serving pirate. And it's not necessarily bad intent - he just doesn't consider consequences. Consequences don't exist in his world. Why should he think they exist for anyone else? Why not give up Will Turner, who has so far managed to wriggle his way out with the best of them, as a stalling tactic? And by the time it gets to the souls, they're already on the quest for the key, right? I can't remember now. If so, giving up the souls is again a stalling tactic to gain ultimate control over Davy Jones. I don't think it's intentional malice, but a failure to consider consequences beyond the immediate self-serving goal.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I also don't have any problem with Captain Jack's behavior. If nothing else it certainly helps shed light on why the first crew of the Black Pearl mutinied and left him to die.I always felt that the first movie made it seem they mutinied because they were greedy, and Barbossa swayed them as well. The way Barbossa whips them into a frenzy is indicative that they aren't the brightest crew. There was no indication that Jack mistreated them.