Pirates of the Caribbean II - a quick review...

Aug 14, 2006 23:28

Much like the Back To The Future trilogy, this middle part is overly long, has a confused plot, isn't as much fun as the first movie and appears to serve only to set up the third movie ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 17

trampledamage August 14 2006, 22:37:19 UTC
This is useful information - ta!

Reply

itsjustaname August 14 2006, 22:43:37 UTC
I live to serve.

Reply

trampledamage August 14 2006, 22:47:04 UTC
cookies?

Reply

itsjustaname August 14 2006, 22:58:17 UTC
Funnily enough I did toy with making that comment 'I live to serve (muffins)' but decided against it.

Reply


mitchy August 14 2006, 22:48:12 UTC
I have to disagree. Some of the set pieces, particularly the ocean scenes, need to be seen on a big screen with surround sound. And it might be too long, but you don't sit in the cinema looking at your watch wondering how long there is to go. At least, I didn't. :)

Reply

itsjustaname August 14 2006, 22:56:47 UTC
I did, metaphorically anyway as I don't wear a watch.

Reply

moral_vacuum August 14 2006, 23:11:06 UTC
I tend to go by how badly my coccyx hurts at the end of the film. If I have difficulty standing up without going "AAACH! JESUS!", the film was too long.

Reply

itsjustaname August 15 2006, 06:04:44 UTC
If I'm conscious of time passing then it's a bad sign. I don't care how long a actually movie is, but if it seems long when I'm watching it then that's not good. Interview With A Vampire is only about 90 mins long but by the tiome it had finished I thought I'd been sat there for five hours!

Reply


bluescissors76 August 14 2006, 23:39:39 UTC
they did a display page in Entertainment Weekly indicating that all of Johnny Depp's movies together have grossed $1.8 billion. Of course the bulk of that is the two Pirates movies, but it's pretty cool to see all the movies he's been in. I'm partial to Chocolat and Edward Scissorhands.

Reply

itsjustaname August 15 2006, 06:02:31 UTC
I think Cry Baby and Benny & Joon are my favourites.

Reply


viscount_s August 15 2006, 06:27:53 UTC
It struck me as being very much a holywood-sequel-by-the-numbers. Take one very good original movie, boil down to bare essence, add SFX (but take no risks with anything vaguely new, as it must slavishly repeat the same -winning- formula) add marginally less coherent plot, boil & serve.

The only real problem I had was that it was a lot darker than the first film, but at the same time, they went for special FX, rather than acting. The crew of the Flying Dutchman would have been much better had they just been actors who were allowed to (shock) act...

S

Reply


viscount_s August 15 2006, 10:28:48 UTC
By the way, did everyone stay until the very very end, to see the bit after the credits?

S

Reply

ivory_goddess August 15 2006, 19:12:34 UTC
Yeah - longest flippin' credits in recorded history (or so it seemed) and then the extra bit wasn't bloody worth it!

Gah!

Reply

viscount_s August 15 2006, 20:13:40 UTC
Yup! I felt exactly the same way!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up