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

[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.

[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?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.