Avast! Have purchased my tix; counting down til Pirates time

[well he's back]

Anyone else on the Board care to share my excitement - I'm going to the 8pm showing of "Pirates" Thursday night. Don't care if I have work the next morning; don't care if 2nd movie was so-so. I am so pumped for this!!! Barbossa! Captain Jack! An undead monkey!

[NailBunny]

Anyone else on the Board care to share my excitement - I'm going to the 8pm showing of "Pirates" Thursday night. Don't care if I have work the next morning; don't care if 2nd movie was so-so. I am so pumped for this!!! Barbossa! Captain Jack! An undead monkey!

Aye, I be on board as well, mate! Though we weren't able to get tix for anything earlier than Saturday evening. Ah well, I'm such an insufferable spoiler addict I know how the damn thing ends already anyway. :D

Counting the minutes! And yes, I'm dressing up, because I'm just that dorky! Pirate skirt, striped stockings, At World's End T-shirt, bandanna, hair-trinkets, cutlass and compass!




what?

[Anaamika]

Well, while I haven't bought my tix, you can add me to the excitement! I actually rather liked the second movie, even if it wasn't the best thing to come down the pike. I am really excited!

[Noone Special]

Saturday afternoon, coming to a theater near us! Ordered our tix straight from the theater, over the Internet. This is a movie every one in the family (parents, teen-age daughter, 10 yo twins) is psyched to see, ASAP!

We won't be getting dressed up, though. But I'm sure the kids will be talking like pirates for a few days after... :)

[parsnip]

Friday 11:45 am, tickets purchased for alternate parental unit and the 2 kids. Dad is letting them skip school. (It's a family day, that's the ticket). I have to work, but will hear every bit, word for word, from the 8 year old.

POTC I and II have been in continuous re-run for the last week.

[capybara]

(All the Werewolf/Mafia/Pirates XVIII people will be carefully watching this thread. . .)

[RogueRacer]

RogueGF and I have our tickets for an 8:00pm showing Thursday night. How nice of Disney to allow it to open early enough for the kids to go. (I would rather they hadn't)

[DeadlyAccurate]

I may try a Sunday afternoon showing. Otherwise, I'll go Monday in the early afternoon (like at one or two.)

[Moirai]

My SIL and her fiancee are going to a showing at the El Capitan in LA. I am very jealous.

I think I'll watch both this week, just to get ready!

Arggh!

[randwill]

It's getting bad reviews, but it's critic-proof as far as ticket sales will go. I thought the first one was okay, but too long. Skipped the second one and will skip this one as well. Those of you who can't wait to ogle Johnny Depp dressed like a pirate for three hours, have fun!

[Mahaloth]

I thought this thread was going to be about virus protection(until I read the rest).

My wife and I are big defenders of the second one. It really works upon multiple viewings.

We'll be either opening weekend or soon after.

[NailBunny]

Those of you who can't wait to ogle Johnny Depp dressed like a pirate for three hours, have fun!

Thank you, I will! :D

[Duck Duck Goose]

It's getting bad reviews

We.

Don't.

Care.

:D

The Goose family collectively has to wait until Memorial Day Monday, noon-ish, to see this, due to conflicting work schedules for everybody involved. :( :(

We wish the Avon (http://www.theavon.com/) did midday matinees ("The biggest screen in Decatur!" plus they show cartoons and have 6 flavors of popcorn courtesy of Del's Popcorn, also a local institution), but they don't, so we'll have to settle for the Hickory Point 12.

I liked the second movie; I thought it it advanced both plot and characters admirably, and had plenty of Bruckheimer action. I also have a secret crush on Geoffrey Rush, and I'm SO glad he's back...

[Cheez_Whia]

Yep, I bought tix online last week. We're going Saturday night 7:30 pm. Looks like a great ride!

[JpnDude]

I got my tickets for a Friday, May 25th showing at 8:30pm in a suburban Tokyo cinema. At the same time, Tokyo Disneyland is having a Pirate Gallery showing artistic scenes from the newly-refurbished attraction opening in July. :D

[Moirai]

For those who thought the second one was a bit much, Bruckheimer and Verbinksi have already been on record that this one is even more dense!

I love them all (yes, even this one, even though I haven't seen it yet). Great cast (and not just the front three pretty people- I always get a kick out of Jack Davenport whenever I see him in something), fun stories, neat FX... I get exactly what I'm looking for- a swash, a buckle, and a fun afternoon!

:cool:

[Moirai]

At the same time, Tokyo Disneyland is having a Pirate Gallery showing artistic scenes from the newly-refurbished attraction opening in July. :D


Ah yes- the Captain Jack edition! If it's the same "update" as at the Anaheim park, it's not bad at all.

[randwill]

We.

Don't.

Care.

:D

So you wouldn't describe yourself as a discriminating movie-goer I take it?

[Rucksinator]

Warning: slight thread-shitting ahead. I'll spoilerize it just so that I don't seem like such a jerk.

I personally thought that the ending of the last one would have been just as subtle if then entire cast had turned to the camera, waved, and said "See you next year!". After hours of just wanting a conclusion, all I got was an ad for the next one.



Here's to hoping this one is good.

[Red Barchetta]

I personally thought that the ending of the last one would have been just as subtle if then entire cast had turned to the camera, waved, and said "See you next year!". After hours of just wanting a conclusion, all I got was an ad for the next one.





Watch Ebert & Roper, do you?

[twopiecesofeight]

Disclaimer: Conversation snipped for shorter length. Did not add extra words, artificial flavors or sweeteners.

randwill: It's getting bad reviews,

Duck Duck Goose:We.

Don't.

Care.

:D

randwill: but it's critic-proof as far as ticket sales will go.
Aye, both o' ye speaks de truth!

I saw the first two movies and enjoyed them both. Gore Verbinski is like Michael Bay* (shudder) with half the caffeine. A good thing, methinks. I can actually follow the camera action without getting seasick. Johnny Depp and the legendary Chow Yun-Fat? Woohoo! (Does Mr. Chow get two guns? Darn historical reality, he should wield dual auto-loading flintlock pistols. :))

Bring on the popcorn!

*Yes, I'm watching Transformers. I trust that Executive Producer Steven Spielberg won't let it turn into a 90-minute music video advertising toys...much.

[Rucksinator]

Watch Ebert & Roper, do you?
No, but it doesn't surprise me that others felt the same way.

[mswas]

My wife, who worked a bit on the Pirates Franchise doing continuity editing for the larger franchise really loved it when she saw a screening on Monday, as did my friend Chrysoula who went with her.

I of course had to miss it because someone had to stay home with our baby girl. I am looking forward to it, but I'll probably see it by myself as a Matinee sometime.

[Mops]

Went to a 'pre-premiere' screening at our local cinema yesterday at 22 o'clock. It was worth it, overall.

Attendance was surprisingly low - some 300 people in a 600-plus venue, for a screening that was advertised for the last three weeks. I recollect much more interest for the second movie.


The beginning was pretty dark - the designated bad guys hanging children, for God's sake.

Jack Sparrow in the Netherworld - well done. He doesn't suffer, as such - but to spend eternity in this way ::shudder::

Chow Yun-Fat doesn't get much screen time IMO - a first meeting, a fight, another meeting, then he gets spitted. His character's main dramatic purpose is making the heroine a pirate captain.

Not many good new supernatural inventions - the 1st and 2nd movies had more original ideas; the 3rd movie tends to coast on them.

Ending: well done. Conventional happy end resisted.

[Moirai]

So you wouldn't describe yourself as a discriminating movie-goer I take it?

Huh. I would describe myself that way, yet I know I will enjoy this movie. I also enjoy Shakespeare, dystopian fiction, disaster movies, classic comedies, dense foreign films, and heavy dramas.

:dubious:

Fun is fun.

[randwill]

Huh. I would describe myself that way, yet I know I will enjoy this movie. I also enjoy Shakespeare, dystopian fiction, disaster movies, classic comedies, dense foreign films, and heavy dramas.

:dubious:

Fun is fun.You're more psychic than I am then. There's no way I could know I was going to enjoy a movie, or a book or a television program for that matter, prior to having seen or read it. There have been things I have had high hopes for and, naturally, I want to enjoy anything I have choosen to put my time into. But I can't know that I'm going to enjoy something just because I want to and believe I will. I loved all of Stanley Kubrick's films to varying degrees and just knew that "Eyes Wide Shut" was going to be great. Oops! Lesson learned.

Yes, fun is fun. But not having seen it I don't know that "Pirates..." is gonna' be any fun. Maybe it'll be, “overstuffed”, “textbook definition of overkill”, “confusing”, “choppy and long”, “lukewarm maelstrom”, “tiresome and disorienting,” to use a few phrases some critics have written about it. To be fair, roughly half the reviews have been positive.

One thing's for sure, it's been hyped to the max, so sheep-like audiences will fill the mega-plexes this weekend just like they do every weekend whether that week's must-see movie is a jewel or a turd. It makes no difference.

I'll be waiting for "Knocked Up" and "Waitress". I just know those are gonna' be better movies.

[Chronos]

Huh. I would describe myself that way, yet I know I will enjoy this movie. I also enjoy Shakespeare...You want mass entertainment written with no regard for "discriminating tastes", that's it right there. Had Shakespeare the technology, he most certainly would have made movies like Pirates. Admittedly, he wouldn't have only made movies like that, but there's nothing wrong with a completely unrealistic action-packed eye-candy swashbuckler every now and then.

Oh, and randwill, there are other reasons to see this movie than ogling Johnny Depp dressed like a pirate for two hours. Some of us are quite looking forward to ogling Kiera Knightly dressed like a pirate for two hours.

[Duck Duck Goose]

So you wouldn't describe yourself as a discriminating movie-goer I take it?
If you mean as in "paying attention to what the critics say", then no, I guess not. I've been burned by Roger Ebert in particular too many times over the last, oh, five years or so. It seems like back in the 80s and 90s he used to be able to say, "This was a dumb movie, but it was fun and I liked it", but lately it seems like he sits there and watches the movie with a critic's eye, and awards stars on the basis of how it stacks up to that critic's eye, and not to how enjoyable the movie was overall.

Virtually everything he's given four stars to since about 2002 I have found was not worth carting home from Family Video, so I have stopped paying attention to the "Two Thumbs Up--Ebert and Roper" on the box.

So if that makes me a "non-discriminating movie-goer", then guilty as charged.

[RogueRacer]

One thing's for sure, it's been hyped to the max, so sheep-like audiences will fill the mega-plexes this weekend just like they do every weekend whether that week's must-see movie is a jewel or a turd. It makes no difference.I fail to see how enjoying a popcorn movie makes one a sheep.

[randwill]

If you mean as in "paying attention to what the critics say", then no, I guess not. I've been burned by Roger Ebert in particular too many times over the last, oh, five years or so. It seems like back in the 80s and 90s he used to be able to say, "This was a dumb movie, but it was fun and I liked it", but lately it seems like he sits there and watches the movie with a critic's eye, and awards stars on the basis of how it stacks up to that critic's eye, and not to how enjoyable the movie was overall.

Virtually everything he's given four stars to since about 2002 I have found was not worth carting home from Family Video, so I have stopped paying attention to the "Two Thumbs Up--Ebert and Roper" on the box.

So if that makes me a "non-discriminating movie-goer", then guilty as charged.That's why rottentomatoes.com is such an excellent resource for serious film fanatics. There you get to see the consensus of opinion from a large number of people who write about film for a living. At this writing "Pirates 3" has 44 "fresh" reviews and 41 "rotten" for a Tomatometer score of 51%. For me the 75% point is about as far down as I'll go when choosing a film to see. That has worked well for me and I am rarely dissapointed adhering to this rule.

I would never go by the rating of only one writer, including Roger Ebert, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but who has steered me wrong in the past as well.

I've loved looking at Keira Knightly, too, since "Bend It Like Beckham" which, by most accounts would be a better choice for viewing, even a repeated one, than "Pirates 3".

[randwill]

I fail to see how enjoying a popcorn movie makes one a sheep.Me either. But all you have to do is go to the mega-plex on any given weekend and look at the long lines for whatever heavily promoted piece of crap has convinced the masses that they must see it. Then look in the smaller theaters playing what is probably the best movie currenly in release (you know, the one you never heard of because it hasn't been advertised on television) and see only a few people there. Look, there's no accounting for taste. The best movies don't always sell the most tickets. Since that's what corporate movie-making is all about, loud, expensive, mindlessness will always be popular. If that's all you want this weekend, and that's fine, "Pirates 3" may be the movie for you and millions of your peers.

[NailBunny]

With all due respect: I know it's not for me to say, not having posted the OP, but would it be too much to ask for those who have already made up their minds that they dislike the film to let us "sheep" just enjoy the anticipation?

I know Pirates is not everyone's cup of tea, or rum as it were, and personally I enjoy hearing everyone's take on the movies be it good or bad, but some of us are genuinely excited and disparraging us for that strikes me as a wee bit...rude?

[well he's back]

To Randwill, re his Post, #26: I hate being called sheep-like just because I choose to divert myself with a highly marketed movie. I didn't go see "Spiderman", or "Shrek", even tho they were pushed by marketing machinery. I'm going to "Pirates" cause I loved the first one so much; not because I'm a sheep.

[randwill]

To Randwill, re his Post, #26: I hate being called sheep-like just because I choose to divert myself with a highly marketed movie. I didn't go see "Spiderman", or "Shrek", even tho they were pushed by marketing machinery. I'm going to "Pirates" cause I loved the first one so much; not because I'm a sheep.I didn't mean to offend you personally, I don't even know you. I hope you come out of the screening feeling happy. But the sheep analogy is hard to ignore if you go anywhere near a theater the opening night of a heavily hyped blockbuster that all advance word has told us is terrible. Maybe cattle-to-slaughter would be more on the mark!

[Duck Duck Goose]

Well, my daughter and her entire posse are down at the Hickory Point 12 even as we speak, and I'll bet she's having an absolute blast, dissenting critics notwithstanding.

And she and her posse are about as un-sheep-like as you can imagine. They aren't standing in line to see P3 because they're undiscriminating moviegoers who only go see what Corporate Hollywood tells them to go see--they're standing in line to see P3 to see how the story comes out.. I think that's something you're totally missing here: we have all collectively invested two movies' worth of time in learning about--and caring about--these characters, and we wanna know what happens next.

Same thing happened with the Star Wars movies. I'm old enough to remember simillar highbrow quibbles with the utter baseness of its subject matter first time around--and not to care.

I saw it 10 times. And I saw all the others in turn.
Because I wanted to see how it came out.

[randwill]

I'm no Marshall McLuhan (neither is he, anymore) but when intelligent people are talking about how good a movie is that they haven't seen yet, I'd say the marketing department has done their job. Enjoy maties, this ole landlubber hopes you have a good time.

[Tangent]

With all due respect: I know it's not for me to say, not having posted the OP, but would it be too much to ask for those who have already made up their minds that they dislike the film to let us "sheep" just enjoy the anticipation?

I know Pirates is not everyone's cup of tea, or rum as it were, and personally I enjoy hearing everyone's take on the movies be it good or bad, but some of us are genuinely excited and disparraging us for that strikes me as a wee bit...rude?

There's a radio show I listen to where one of the guys will--on a daily basis--take a virtual crap on someone else's anticipation or enjoyment of some popular movie, music, book, or television show. He doesn't really add anything useful to the conversation, he just pipes up to say how stupid and pandering and awful everything is that's produced for the masses. So the other on-air personalities have dubbed him "the afternoon cloud" because he can't resist the urge to pop up every day and rain on someone's parade.

Well, we have our own afternoon cloud here on the SDMB. Check out all the Lost threads for the past season and you'll see the cloud doing its best to spout negativity among fans of the show who just want to discuss the episodes with other fans.

Sound familiar?

[randwill]

There's a radio show I listen to where one of the guys will--on a daily basis--take a virtual crap on someone else's anticipation or enjoyment of some popular movie, music, book, or television show. He doesn't really add anything useful to the conversation, he just pipes up to say how stupid and pandering and awful everything is that's produced for the masses. So the other on-air personalities have dubbed him "the afternoon cloud" because he can't resist the urge to pop up every day and rain on someone's parade.

Well, we have our own afternoon cloud here on the SDMB. Check out all the Lost threads for the past season and you'll see the cloud doing its best to spout negativity among fans of the show who just want to discuss the episodes with other fans.

Sound familiar?Are my negative opinions less valid than someone's positive opinions? Are criticisms of media not welcome along with praise? Don't thoughtful people who want to talk about the true merits of a film and how it is sold to its customers rather than how dreamy Johnny Depp is or how hot Keira Knightly is have a voice? Is this a pajama party or a discussion forum?

I merely pointed out that the critics are split on the quality of the film. If the majority of the reviews said it was better than the first one, I'd be looking foward to seeing it too.

And if you read those "Lost" threads you'll see that I am a fan of the show who became disheartened at the drop off in quality and repetition of certain plot elements this season. And I'm not the only one, but even if I was it's still my valid opinion.

If you want to know the truth, unearned adoration of entertainment of questionable quality (try saying that three time fast) is a little discouraging to me. But there's plenty of stuff that I revere that you would probably hate, so there you go. Like it says up above, "It's taking longer than we thought."

So enjoy the movie. And stay off my lawn!

[Ellis Dee]

Just got back from seeing it. I give it a "meh." To be fair, I disliked the second one when seeing it in the theater, but watching it for a second time yesterday (getting ready for today) it was much better than I remembered. Maybe the third will grow on me as well.SPOILERS
I have several questions. If the goddess chick hated the pirate captains (or whatever they called the 9 of 8) so much, why did she have a fling with Jack, who is a pirate captain?

Anyone else roll their eyes when Keira was made pirate king? Puh-lease.

The scene where they sailed off the edge of the world seemed like a tribute to Erik the Viking. I kept thinking to myself: "SHE blew the horn resounding!" For the next 45 minutes I was thinking about how much I would rather have been watching Erik the Viking.

Pirate council? Lame. This is a pirate movie. More swashbuckling, less town hall meeting, please. Reminded me of how lacking the Star Wars prequels were and why.

Anyone other than me offended by the ending? I'm not usually the first one to champion feminism, but that ending was a ridiculous male fantasy. What, Keira is supposed to be chaste for here entire life with a week's worth of a relationship interspersed throughout? She hasn't been with a man in ten fucking years? Poor girl has to get some.

The final battle was kinda silly in a two ways. First, you have two opposing armadas that never actually do anything. Two ships square off in a whirlpool while hundreds of other just sit there watching? Okaaay. Worse was when the Flying Dutchman and the Black Pearl surround the command ship and blow it up. That command ship had about a million cannon; it could easily have sunk both the Dutchman and the Pearl without even reloading, but yet didn't fire a shot. I can sorta fanwank being paralyzed in awesome fear of the Dutchman, but they'd already been "behind the curtain," so to speak, so the abject terror angle doesn't make sense either.

I did like it when they shot the undead monkey out of the cannon. Seeing the little guy hurtle through the air on fire was funny.

[cactus waltz]

I have several questions. If the goddess chick hated the pirate captains (or whatever they called the 9 of 8) so much, why did she have a fling with Jack, who is a pirate captain?

According to IMDB, the third movie wasn't fully written when they started shooting. I assume they could have edited that however.


Anyone else roll their eyes when Keira was made pirate king? Puh-lease.

No, but I did scoff at her speech of "motivation". She was obviously uncomfortable and not really fit to lead a gang of bandits.


Anyone other than me offended by the ending? I'm not usually the first one to champion feminism, but that ending was a ridiculous male fantasy. What, Keira is supposed to be chaste for here entire life with a week's worth of a relationship interspersed throughout? She hasn't been with a man in ten fucking years? Poor girl has to get some.

To be fair, she has a lot more freedom to meet other partners than Turnerdoes. He's chained to the ship after all.


Worse was when the Flying Dutchman and the Black Pearl surround the command ship and blow it up. That command ship had about a million cannon; it could easily have sunk both the Dutchman and the Pearl without even reloading, but yet didn't fire a shot.

I think you missed the point entirely. Cutler felt he had already lost the battle, since he didn't anticipate the other ship. He had won by betraying Turner but was bested still. He simply gave in to the better man.

[Nava]

Those of you who can't wait to ogle Johnny Depp dressed like a pirate for three hours, have fun!

Oh, he's married, I'll stick to the ogling one who's younger than me :)

[Moirai]

Maybe the too-subtle point is that we are open to it possibly (or probably) being good, and not convinced in advance that it will suck!

Anyhoo, I watched the first one Wednesday night, the second one last night, and we may hit the 9:00 am show after we drop the kids off at school!

[Little Plastic Ninja]

She answers that question right in the movie, just obliquely, when Davy Jones gets cranky at her: "You KNEW it was always my nature." She's as fickle as the sea. And she DID try to kill Jack. He mentions that in the Underworld.

The idea of Little Miss Swan as the pirate king is a bit of an insult to pirate kings everywhere, I agree. I also knew it was going to go that way. Should've been Jack.

I have no illusions -- and nor should Turner -- that Lizzie kept chaste for ten years. She only brought one kid to the beach and she was happy to see Will, that's all we know. Maybe she did, but again, COME ON. He can't trust her to tell him the truth about killing people and he thinks she's going to just keep her knees together for ten years? She'd just have to be careful not to do any sailing men or it's not going to be all smiles when her boyfriend the ferryman of the dead comes back -- "So, my new gunnery officer has some interesting stories about that little birthmark on the back of your thigh..."

That reminds me. Some hot leg-kissin' for a Disney move. :eek: :D

I think Cutler's stupidity in the last bits of the movie was just that -- he's a CEO, he's not a ship captain. He saw everything falling apart around him and he KNEW he was boned. He just froze up. It was cool watching the ship blow up around him, though.

But argh. If I never hated Keira's character before, I surely do now. Poor Norrington gets one kiss and dies for it. That's a bit creepy though, isn't it? Everyone who's ever kissed Elizabeth has died at LEAST once.

[Anaamika]

I'm going to see it tonight! Movies should be shallow sometimes, I cant; forever be watching deep stuff anyway. And if I really wanted deep I'd borrow a book. I have 7 or 8 of them sitting on the stairs I am reading.

I am excitedly looking forward to swashbuckling, fun-in-the-sun, and of course Johnny Depp who I think is a very good and diverse actor. I'll see it with my SO. We'll make an afternoon of it, dinner and a movie. What more does one want?

[Trunk]

This is to no one in particular.

I don't think randwill is saying that we shouldn't go see movie-candy.

But, within what we'd all label "move candy" or "summer popcorn movie" or whatever, I think we can all agree there are still differences in quality.

Of course it's a bad idea to be slaves to critics, but it's a far worse idea to be a slave to marketing, and that's really what it seems like when there are endless streams of people heading into these sequels that don't seem to please the critics OR THE FANS (cf. Spiderman, Shrek 3, or POTC 2).

But, one gets the impression that people are thinking, "gotta go see da seconty one because ah done seen da first one!"

It seems like there's just an endless stream of people heading to movies (particularly sequels) without considering at all the quality of the movie they might be going to see, or without considering potentially better options (as he mentioned, Waitress, which by all accounts is an excellent movie).

And, people might complain that The Host (or Waitress) didn't play anywhere near them, but it's a real chicken-and-egg thing. People have to start branching out taste-wise, and seeing what else is out there. It's particularly surprising that people here -- who often tend to be thoughtful about their moviegoing -- get so, well, sheepish, when this stuff like POTC3 comes out.

[Anaamika]

It's not even remotely the same thing. I hate movies like Waitress:

Jenna is a pregnant, unhappily married waitress in the deep south. She meets a newcomer to her town and falls into an unlikely relationship as a last attempt at happiness.

Sounds like a chick-flick to me...shallow useless tripe. Yes, it's real life. I don't want to go to a movie to see real life! it's not my life...I am not in any of those situations. I don't even like romance in movies, let alone stuff like this.

So all of my movies are;

Adventure
Comedy
Swashbuckling
Sci-fi

All things that are not real and delve into the realm of fantasy. I feel like if I trotted off to see movies like Waitress it would simply be....to watch a movie like Waitress. Who cares if it's "good" in someone else's opinion? Doesn't entertainment matter? What entertains me?

I have never lied about the fact that I am a hedonist and in it for pure pleasure. Again, when I want depth, I read books, though I read those for entertainment value as well...I just like deeper things then.

POTC 3 is light-hearted and fun, and that's all I want for my two hours.

[Einmon]

I enjoyed it, even if I did have the "meh" feeling that Ellis Dee mentioned. I think that applied more to the first ... oh, half or so, which was spent establishing the "plot". That sucker was more convoluted than a Boa Constrictor who accidentally swallowed a box of Pop Rocks - nobody in my group really got what was going on and who was with whom. Not that it really mattered, mind you, there was swashbuckling and fun stuff, it was just somewhat disjointed.

As to my own comments / questions:

Why were the people singing in the very beginning? There was a lot of ominous mention of "THAT SONG" and I thought it would be cleared up later but it never wasn't.

How did the Kraken die? I get why from a writer's point of view: if one person has a cephalopod ex machina they can use to swallow ships it would have made the final battle even more lopsided. But who killed it - was it the East India Trading Company (whose sinister power never was sufficiently explained IMHO)?

Why could Barbossa be brought back from the dead but nobody else? Because he was one of the nine whatnot or others?

Why can't Keira Knightley go and hang out on the Dutchman with her man if he can't leave? Will Turner seemed to be perfectly able to travel with the ship even when he wasn't dead.

The wedding scene was cool, though, and I appreciated that the plot was more surprising than you'd have thought (OMG they killed Norrington!) That and I applaud the decision of having loads of Johnny Depps talking to each other. What, shallow and sheeplike, me? Never.

[Trunk]

So all of my movies are;

Adventure
Comedy
Swashbuckling
Sci-fi
Yeah, but surely you don't just enjoy ALL movie in those categories?

You must have some sense of "that was well done" or "that stunk" even if all you're seeing is Spiderman/Superman/X-Men/Hulk/Fantastic Four?

[Anaamika]

Yeah, but surely you don't just enjoy ALL movie in those categories?

You must have some sense of "that was well done" or "that stunk" even if all you're seeing is Spiderman/Superman/X-Men/Hulk/Fantastic Four?
Absolutely not. I don't think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I don't believe I should go see a movie just because people say I should...and you don't believe I should go see a movie just because people say I should.

take for example the ones you've mentioned.

Spiderman I sucked.
Spidey 2 was a significant improvement and actually enjoyable.

Superman - the new one - I hated. Chiefly because he turned so emo.
I've not seen either Hulk or Fantastic Four because it sounds like they sucked. I'll eventually rent them and make my own decision.

X-Men I liked the first and second. The third lost a lot of the in-depth character development.

I mean, sure I have grades of what I liked. I rather liked POTC 2. It was lacking some things, but it was still a high adventure. I didn't go see it in the theatre, but I bought it a few weeks ago.
I will go see POTC 3 in the theatre because it's the last one, because I know there'll be some great scenes that look good on the big screen, and because I do like the story.
Don't get me wrong...i think they could have easily stopped at POTC I. But I think there is enough in there to still enjoy it.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Let me just say that nesting quotes and spoilers is complicated... :D

Why were the people singing in the very beginning? There was a lot of ominous mention of "THAT SONG" and I thought it would be cleared up later but it never wasn't.

Because it was a pirate song, first, and second because it was making those nine pieces of eight summon the pirate lords into one place. They kept saying over and over again "the song has been sung" and I gather it was something like the coin hitting the water in the first movie -- a summoning, a call.

How did the Kraken die? I get why from a writer's point of view: if one person has a cephalopod ex machina they can use to swallow ships it would have made the final battle even more lopsided. But who killed it - was it the East India Trading Company (whose sinister power never was sufficiently explained IMHO)?

Beckett, I think, mentions ordering Davy to kill "his pet". I assumed this was the kraken. Since Beckett held the heart, he had all the power.

Of course, the natural question to follow is why Beckett would EVER want to do that. I have the feeling the answer is simple: he realized he might not succeed and did not want that thing turned on him. More than that, he wanted an end to supernatural control over the waters that did not come from him. He didn't get rid of Davy himself because he couldn't, not without sacrificing himself.


Why could Barbossa be brought back from the dead but nobody else? Because he was one of the nine whatnot or others?



Who couldn't be brought back? Jack was assumed bodily into Hello, so he was a special case. Tia Dalma/Calypso brought Barbossa back 'cause she wanted to. Nobody *sniff* bothered to bring Norrington back. Will was bound to the Dutchman.


Why can't Keira Knightley go and hang out on the Dutchman with her man if he can't leave? Will Turner seemed to be perfectly able to travel with the ship even when he wasn't dead.


Good question, except that she wouldn't have been able to follow it under the sea and into the land of the dead all the damn time, probably. At least that's likely not to be a very healthy relationship for a child. Still, that is a good question.

[RogueRacer]

Of course it's a bad idea to be slaves to critics, but it's a far worse idea to be a slave to marketing, and that's really what it seems like when there are endless streams of people heading into these sequels that don't seem to please the critics OR THE FANS (cf. Spiderman, Shrek 3, or POTC 2). Says who? I liked Spiderman 3. I liked PotC 3.

Some have mentioned using Rotten Tomatoes. While I agree that it can be a place to start, if I want to see a movie, I have no problems ignoring it. Since it's been brought up though, as of this moment PotC 3 is exactly at 50% and Spiderman 3 is at 61%. So you're saying that I shouldn't go to either movie because in one case half the critics didn't like it and for the other movie, slightly more than 1/3rd panned it? I really don't get that at all. You're going to let less than half of the voices discourage you from going to a movie? In my case, this is for two franchises where I have liked all of the installments to this point?

I think it goes back to a point that EJsGirl made that seems to be lost on some of you. You're calling us sheep for wanting to see these movies (where in most cases we liked all of the predecessors). To me being a sheep would be allowing these critics or messageboard smarks to disuade us from enjoying these movies. I think some of you are being sheep in thinking that something can't be entertaining if it's not an independent film or loved by critics who by definition criticize.

But, one gets the impression that people are thinking, "gotta go see da seconty one because ah done seen da first one!"Again, you're missing the obvious point. It's not that we've seen the first one. It's that we enjoyed the first one.

It seems like there's just an endless stream of people heading to movies (particularly sequels) without considering at all the quality of the movie they might be going to see, or without considering potentially better options (as he mentioned, Waitress, which by all accounts is an excellent movie).

And, people might complain that The Host (or Waitress) didn't play anywhere near them, but it's a real chicken-and-egg thing. People have to start branching out taste-wise, and seeing what else is out there. It's particularly surprising that people here -- who often tend to be thoughtful about their moviegoing -- get so, well, sheepish, when this stuff like POTC3 comes out.The description of Waitress doesn't sound like anything that I would pay money to see. Why should I see it because the critics like it? Let me bring up another movie that the critics loved, The Departed. To me that movie was an absolute mess with a few great individual performances thrown in. The end result is that the movie was still a mess. The critics absolutely failed me there, but I should follow them blindly? :dubious:

[Tangent]

Are my negative opinions less valid than someone's positive opinions? Are criticisms of media not welcome along with praise? Don't thoughtful people who want to talk about the true merits of a film and how it is sold to its customers rather than how dreamy Johnny Depp is or how hot Keira Knightly is have a voice? Is this a pajama party or a discussion forum?

I'm not saying negative opinions are invalid or unwanted in threads like this. I just get the impression from reading many of your posts that you take take a perverse joy in pointing out to everyone how much you think something sucks, especially when others are posting about their excitement and anticipation of the movie/tv show.

If you want to know the truth, unearned adoration of entertainment of questionable quality (try saying that three time fast) is a little discouraging to me. But there's plenty of stuff that I revere that you would probably hate, so there you go. Like it says up above, "It's taking longer than we thought."


So you're calling us all ignorant because we like these movies? You feel it's your duty to tell us how bad they are, because obviously we're less enlightened than you?



It's getting bad reviews, but it's critic-proof as far as ticket sales will go. I thought the first one was okay, but too long. Skipped the second one and will skip this one as well. Those of you who can't wait to ogle Johnny Depp dressed like a pirate for three hours, have fun!

So you saw the first one and didn't like it enough to see the second, and you won't be seeing the third either, and yet you feel the irresistable urge to come into this thread and make negative comments? Why bother? And not just negative, but condescending. Because the only reason any of us want to see this movie is that we "can't wait to ogle Johnny Depp." Never mind the fact that I've enjoyed both movies so far, for many reasons, none of them involving ogling Depp.

Face it, you're just one of those people (I've known many) who enjoys being negative. You're the Debbie Downer of the Dope. No, wait--you're the afternoon cloud who just can't wait to darken everyone's day.

That's all I have to say about this. I'm not normally one to call people out and argue about crap like this, but I just really wish you would give it a rest. But you won't because you'll misinterpret all this as me saying that you shouldn't post if you can't post anything nice.

You're right about one thing. It's taking a LOT longer than we thought.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

I did NOT go to ogle Johnny Depp (who looks frankly not that sexy in dredlocks and eyeshadow).

I went to ogle Jack Davenport.

Sheesh. :p

[randwill]

I'm not saying negative opinions are invalid or unwanted in threads like this. I just get the impression from reading many of your posts that you take take a perverse joy in pointing out to everyone how much you think something sucks, especially when others are posting about their excitement and anticipation of the movie/tv show.

So you're calling us all ignorant because we like these movies? You feel it's your duty to tell us how bad they are, because obviously we're less enlightened than you?

So you saw the first one and didn't like it enough to see the second, and you won't be seeing the third either, and yet you feel the irresistable urge to come into this thread and make negative comments? Why bother? And not just negative, but condescending. Because the only reason any of us want to see this movie is that we "can't wait to ogle Johnny Depp." Never mind the fact that I've enjoyed both movies so far, for many reasons, none of them involving ogling Depp.

Face it, you're just one of those people (I've known many) who enjoys being negative. You're the Debbie Downer of the Dope. No, wait--you're the afternoon cloud who just can't wait to darken everyone's day.

That's all I have to say about this. I'm not normally one to call people out and argue about crap like this, but I just really wish you would give it a rest. But you won't because you'll misinterpret all this as me saying that you shouldn't post if you can't post anything nice.

You're right about one thing. It's taking a LOT longer than we thought.Someone responded to my report of bad reviews for the movie that “they didn’t care”. I took this to mean that they didn’t care whether the movie was any good or not. I think this is an unfortunate and prevalent attitude among too many film goers.

I wish more people went to see films like, “The Lives of Others”, “Pan’s Labyrinth”, “Bridge to Terabithia”, “Breach”, “Starter for Ten”, “The Host” and “The Wind That Shakes the Barely” to name just a few recent releases I have seen and that I would recommend, rather than things like, “Wild Hogs”, “Delta Farce”, “The Reaping”, “Norbit”, “Perfect Stranger”, “Date Movie” and “Lady in the Water”, none of which I have seen, but which made a lot of money in spite of nearly universal scorn. If they did, maybe more quality movies would be made, and fewer poor and mediocre ones would be foisted on the public. I believe this would be richer for our culture.

I’m not saying that things like “Saw 3” and “Little Man” shouldn’t be made. Fat chance. There should be entertainment options for people of all tastes and levels of sophistication. It’s just unfortunate, to me, that those are the big money-makers and better films can’t always find an audience nearly as large.

Rather than making this about me, as you are trying to do, I think this is a better direction for this thread or perhaps another one.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Someone responded to my report of bad reviews for the movie that “they didn’t care”. I took this to mean that they didn’t care whether the movie was any good or not. I think this is an unfortunate and prevalent attitude among too many film goers.

Or possibly they don't care what critics think. One of my favorite (incredibly cheesy, I will admit, but still one of my favorite) horror movies has something like 10% on the Tomatometer. I recall listening to a Vogue magazine movie reviewer who panned The Green Mile because he couldn't conceive of a 1950s Southern good ole boy jailer getting pissed off over an inmate cursing. So many movies are judged on their universal rather than specific qualities; that is, an action movie may get poor reviews because its characters were poorly fleshed out or some of the action scenes were unrealistic. In my opinion, many critics entirely miss the point. Just because people pay for your opinion doesn't make it valid.

I wish more people went to see films like, “The Lives of Others”, “Pan’s Labyrinth”, “Bridge to Terabithia”, “Breach”, “Starter for Ten”, “The Host” and “The Wind That Shakes the Barely”

Those films do not appeal to everyone, just as many films don't appeal to you. You understand this. How, then, do you propose to make people like what you want to watch? Why do you think this is better? Why should this medium be used for art rather than mindless entertainment?

And why, good Lord, have you come in here to complain about a movie you don't want to see? Because you don't think people should like movies like this? Do you walk up to happy newlyweds and tell them fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce?

[Trunk]

Or possibly they don't care what critics think. One of my favorite (incredibly cheesy, I will admit, but still one of my favorite) horror movies has something like 10% on the Tomatometer. I recall listening to a Vogue magazine movie reviewer who panned The Green Mile because he couldn't conceive of a 1950s Southern good ole boy jailer getting pissed off over an inmate cursing. So many movies are judged on their universal rather than specific qualities; that is, an action movie may get poor reviews because its characters were poorly fleshed out or some of the action scenes were unrealistic. In my opinion, many critics entirely miss the point. Just because people pay for your opinion doesn't make it valid.
But then, what info do you use in deciding whether to see a movie?

Surely, you don't see every single movie that comes out so you have some criteria to judge whether you go?

What is it. . .the trailer?

That's just indicative that you're much more affected by marketing than people who listen to critics.

The fact that you saw the previous one? (Ugh.)

It can't just be the subject matter. . .otherwise what's to stop you from going to see 'Hostel' and 'The Hills Have Eyes' just because you liked 'Saw'?

[randwill]

Or possibly they don't care what critics think. One of my favorite (incredibly cheesy, I will admit, but still one of my favorite) horror movies has something like 10% on the Tomatometer. I recall listening to a Vogue magazine movie reviewer who panned The Green Mile because he couldn't conceive of a 1950s Southern good ole boy jailer getting pissed off over an inmate cursing. So many movies are judged on their universal rather than specific qualities; that is, an action movie may get poor reviews because its characters were poorly fleshed out or some of the action scenes were unrealistic. In my opinion, many critics entirely miss the point. Just because people pay for your opinion doesn't make it valid.

Those films do not appeal to everyone, just as many films don't appeal to you. You understand this. How, then, do you propose to make people like what you want to watch? Why do you think this is better? Why should this medium be used for art rather than mindless entertainment?

And why, good Lord, have you come in here to complain about a movie you don't want to see? Because you don't think people should like movies like this? Do you walk up to happy newlyweds and tell them fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce?It may be that the person who posted the “I don’t care” response meant that they don’t care what critics think.

I think a movie should be judged on how well it accomplished what it set out to do. Simply put, was the horror movie horrifying? Was the comedy funny? If the movie is primarily an action vehicle, then it should be judged as such. I like to care enough about the characters who are involved in the action so I would hope that the filmmakers would flesh them out enough for me to care how the action affects them.

And it’s true that one man’s paid for opinion may not be valid or helpful to you in making viewing choices. I would combine the opinions of many writers along with personal recommendations from friends with what types of films I am generally entertained by when deciding what’s worth my time.

I don’t propose to make people like what I like. I just think one can lead a fuller and more enlightened life if one opens themselves up to more than what the popular culture offers up. I don’t think film should be used exclusively as art and I’ll admit that I enjoy some mindless entertainment. But surely you’re not arguing that the craft of filmmaking is elevated by shoddy product.

I didn’t complain about “Pirates 3”. I pointed out that it was getting bad reviews. I later elaborated that the critics were split about 50 – 50. I quoted some negative reactions from film reviewers.

My complaint is with the plethora of garbage over quality entertainment on movie screens. I wish more people liked and were moved by things that challenged or elevated the human spirit. Not market tested things designed for the lowest common denominator. But I’m on the wrong planet.

I can see how my remark about ogling Johnny Depp would be seen as condescending. So let me just say that if the movie promised to be any better, I’d be right there ogling Keira Knightly. I think I’ll wait for her in a better film though.

Oh, and I heard recently that the average of successful marriages was now slightly above 50%, but, yeah, any couple should go into it with the knowledge that the chances of long term success are iffy.

[Einmon]

Let me just say that nesting quotes and spoilers is complicated... :DThank you for trying - I'll do my best to mirror the effort :)

Re: the song:

I gather it was something like the coin hitting the water in the first movie -- a summoning, a call.But how did "ordinary" people know that song and why did they have those pieces of eight? Well, I guess that's one I'll have to file that under "because they could"...

Re: the cephalopod

Beckett, I think, mentions ordering Davy to kill "his pet". I assumed this was the kraken.Ah, thank you - when that was mentioned, the Calypso thing hadn't been revealed yet, and I assumed he had been ordered to kill his lover at one point by the mysterious East India Trading Company. In retrospect, that doesn't make sense, because they didn't have the heart at that time.

Re: I see dead people

Who couldn't be brought back? Jack was assumed bodily into Hello, so he was a special case. Tia Dalma/Calypso brought Barbossa back 'cause she wanted to. Nobody *sniff* bothered to bring Norrington back. Will was bound to the Dutchman.Alas, Norrington...he would be at the top of my To Do list if I was Calypso. No, when Elizabeth's father came past on the Funky Disco Boat of 80s Speed Dating, Calypso said he couldn't be brought back. But maybe she just wasn't in the mood.

[SmackFu]

In the EW article on this a few weeks ago, the director said the movies were "intended for multiple viewings". That seems like it's just giving up, and saying it's too complicated to follow the first time through.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

Alas, Norrington...he would be at the top of my To Do list if I was Calypso. No, when Elizabeth's father came past on the Funky Disco Boat of 80s Speed Dating, Calypso said he couldn't be brought back. But maybe she just wasn't in the mood.


I don't remember that... I do remember that Elizabeth tossed him a line and Calypso said nothing, and Gov Swann more or less shrugged and told her he was proud of her. She ran around to the side about to jump in and drag him back onto the ship, and THAT'S when Calpyso ordered them to stop her.

Ahhhh, Norrington. We need more Age of Sail movies with men in powdered wigs and long-suffering expressions and British accents. Rowr.

[Ellis Dee]

Just wanted to point out that I agree fully with randwill and Trunk. Leaving the 8:25pm showing, we passed the line for the midnight show on the way out, and the sheep metaphor jumped into my mind.

But randwill, you may not realize this but the ratio of bad and good movies made each year has never really changed; you're lamenting a past that never existed. Also, as a person who appreciates good movies, you should be forever thankful to the mass-produced lowest common denominator fare, since those are what allow the studios to take a chance on the better stuff.

One single tent-pole franchise frees a studio financially to take a shot on ten high-risk limited-appeal projects.

[RikWriter]

I saw it last night. Didn't have to wait in line to buy the tickets because I was in the area early afternoon and picked them up then. Waited in line to get in the theater about 20 minutes, got fairly good seats before it filled up and even snuck in my own Whoppers.
I liked it. Yes, it was a bit convoluted, but I had no trouble following it. I didn't care for the ending so much, but hey, what can you do?
Anyway, my 10 year old son thought it was awesome.

[Moirai]

Just wanted to point out that I agree fully with randwill and Trunk. Leaving the 8:25pm showing, we passed the line for the midnight show on the way out, and the sheep metaphor jumped into my mind.

(Underlining mine)

Does this sound funny to anybody else? ;)

This, however, is right on-


But randwill, you may not realize this but the ratio of bad and good movies made each year has never really changed; you're lamenting a past that never existed. Also, as a person who appreciates good movies, you should be forever thankful to the mass-produced lowest common denominator fare, since those are what allow the studios to take a chance on the better stuff.

One single tent-pole franchise frees a studio financially to take a shot on ten high-risk limited-appeal projects.

[Ellis Dee]

(Underlining mine)

Does this sound funny to anybody else? ;)I suppose it sounds hypocritical if you presume to know why I went on opening night. Have you never heard the middle-school admonition about assuming?

[Tangent]

It makes an ass out of you and ming.

[randwill]

Those films do not appeal to everyone, just as many films don't appeal to you.Re-reading this today raises a question in my mind. Given that the films I listed as recommended are all so different from each other, what do you mean by this?

[Jodi]

I suppose it sounds hypocritical if you presume to know why I went on opening night. Have you never heard the middle-school admonition about assuming?

It sounds hypocritical regardless of your motivation for going: "As I left the movie, I saw sheep going in to watch it." If they're sheep, what does that make you? And if you have some legitimate non-sheep reason for going, why can't they? It reads like you're condemning people (or looking down on them) for something you yourself did as well. That lack of self-awareness is what made it funny.

[elfkin477]

Public service announcement: Don't Leave Until After The Credits!

If you do, you'll regret it... best post-credit scene of the three, IMHO.

[JohnT]

I'm no Marshall McLuhan (neither is he, anymore) but when intelligent people are talking about how good a movie is that they haven't seen yet, I'd say the marketing department has done their job. Enjoy maties, this ole landlubber hopes you have a good time.

:rolleyes:

It's the third movie in a three-movie story arc.

In other words, they've already seen 2/3rd's of the entire story. And determined they liked it enough that they want to see the final 1/3rd.

Hope that helps your lack of understanding: They're not anticipating liking this film because of "marketing", they're basing their likelihood of liking this film because they liked the first two installments of the series.

Are you a victim of marketing because you want to finish the final 300 pages in a 900 page novel or (to use a better analogy) if you wanted to read the third LOTR if you liked the first two books? :rolleyes:

[Ellis Dee]

It sounds hypocritical regardless of your motivation for going: "As I left the movie, I saw sheep going in to watch it." If they're sheep, what does that make you? And if you have some legitimate non-sheep reason for going, why can't they? It reads like you're condemning people (or looking down on them) for something you yourself did as well. That lack of self-awareness is what made it funny.The only lack of self-awareness is whatever you two are projecting onto me.

[Jodi]

The only lack of self-awareness is whatever you two are projecting onto me.

It's like exiting McDonald's after eating there and commenting on all the fools going in to eat their slop. It's not that hard to see why the comment is sorta funny. I gather that you can't see it, which is okay. Moving on. . . .

I'm going to see the 2 p.m. show today. I'm kinda worried. I loved the first movie; I was conflicted about the second (by which I mean I didn't really like but wished I had); and now this one looks to be longer, less coherent, and more manic. I hope it's better than I fear it is.

[Ellis Dee]

I'm going to see the 2 p.m. show today. I'm kinda worried. I loved the first movie; I was conflicted about the second (by which I mean I didn't really like but wished I had); and now this one looks to be longer, less coherent, and more manic. I hope it's better than I fear it is.Sadly, you should probably be worried. As I posted upthread, I didn't like the second one when seeing it in the theater. Truth be told, I didn't even really like the first one when seeing it for the first time on HBO.

But my sister, the uber-geek that she is, made it a point to catch both PotC 2 & 3 on opening night, similarly to how she did for all three Star Wars prequels. While I am/was lukewarm on all six movies, (to put it kindly,) it's hard to make time to spend alone with sis since she has a rugrat to look after. So I go to these openings with her, leaving the brother-in-law to fend for the kid.

Putting aside the matter of your and EJsGirl's snarkiness, sis pretty much hated PotC 3, while I found it enjoyable enough. Most of my liking was simply a matter of it meeting my expectations: crappy, campy fun. It really is overwrought and pointless, but that's exactly what I expected, so I was able to accept it for what it was.

Sis, however? Wow. She loved the first one to death, and is a staunch defender of the second, but she went on and on about what she didn't like in the third one on the ride home. Her biggest complaint was that it was too dark; all the light humor of the first movie has been sucked out of it and replaced with, well, nothing, really.

I almost considered that a plus, in that most of the light humor in the second movie was in the form of lame callbacks to the first movie shoehorned in regardless of how out of place they were. The lack of that technique in the third movie is a welcome change.

The ultimate embodiment of the loss of light humor can be summed up bythe great "it's more of a guideline" running gag from the first being perverted into a tedious scene where a gigantic rulebook is dusted off and read aloud from. Jesus Christ, people, what happened to the lighthearted campy fun?In summary, if you're a big fan of PotC and are dying to see the third one, you're probably in for a big letdown. If, however, you don't particularly like the franchise, but are going because a loved one is dying to see it, you'll probably have a decent time.

[Noone Special]

In summary, if you're a big fan of PotC and are dying to see the third one, you're probably in for a big letdown. If, however, you don't particularly like the franchise, but are going because a loved one is dying to see it, you'll probably have a decent time.Actually, I disagree with you assessment -- I (and the rest of my family) loved PotC III -- not despite the fact that it was, in your words, crappy, campy fun.... overwrought and pointlessbut because of these qualities. It was, in essence, a lampoon of itself, and (ISTM) purposefully so. It was also a lampoon of a lot of "Action" genre mainstays, the scene Where Will and Elizabeth are "married" in the midst of one of the craziest, weirdest, campiest "fight scenes" I have ever seen comes to mind as spoofing similar scenes where the protagonist(s) seek(s) some sort of "closure" right in the middle of a climactic scene, yet unrelated to it.

[Jodi]

In summary, if you're a big fan of PotC and are dying to see the third one, you're probably in for a big letdown. If, however, you don't particularly like the franchise, but are going because a loved one is dying to see it, you'll probably have a decent time.

I really liked the first one; I really didn't like the second one. The only thing about the truly awful PC2 that made me think PC3 would be better was Barbarosa's reappearance at the end.

I liked PC3. It wasn't the acme of cinematic artistry, but it was pretty well done for what it was intended to be (an effects-heavy "blockbuster" that moves along quickly and that has a plot that won't withstand heavy scrutiny). I was worried about the length but I didn't look at my watch once. I thought it refrained from crossing over the "this is just completely stupid" line that PC2 went way over (in the "humans in a hamster ball" scene, for example). I liked the ending, the fact that it didn't tie things up neatly with a bow, and I did think the special effects were pretty darn special. So yeah, worth the price of a matinee for me. For the third in a series, I thought it was way better and more coherent than Spiderman 3, which I was really disappointed by.

[Einmon]

I actually agree with Ellis Dee for the most part (other than about the first movie), but I would rather say that if you loved the second movie to death you will probably not like this one.

Let me explain: I love the first movie, and I think it's the greatest pirate movie EVER (followed closely by "The Crimson Pirate", btw). Now I hated the second one, because I thought it completely coasted on the first one's coattails, and where the first one was surprisingly light and campy fun, the second one beat you to death with anvillicious jokes (ARE YOU LAUGHING ABOUT THE RUM JOKE YET??? LETS MAKE IT A THIRD TIME).

Thus, for me, I liked the fact that the third one dialled it down a notch, and for all its disjointedness, had fun parts that stood all by themselves, and occasionally scenes of brilliance (like the one Noone Special mentioned in the spoiler above). There were drawn-out parts, and from my perspective I wouldn't call it a great movie, but it was enjoyable.

However, if you loved the more thigh-slapping approach of part two, chances are high you will be sorely disappointed by the comparative lack of camp - e.g. most people I knew who hated the third movie complained that all the "running gags" were missing.

[Moirai]

Snark? Me? Did you miss the ;) in that post? Sheesh- it was a gentle poke at something I found funny...

Jump back.

[RandMcnally]

Public service announcement: Don't Leave Until After The Credits!

If you do, you'll regret it... best post-credit scene of the three, IMHO.


Can you spoil it for me? I, in my infinite wisdom, left before the credits were started. Doesn't help that a fire alarm got pulled just at that moment too.

[Jodi]

Can you spoil it for me? I, in my infinite wisdom, left before the credits were started. Doesn't help that a fire alarm got pulled just at that moment too.

After the credits, you see Elizabeth and a little boy -- ten years old, one assumes -- in a meadow on a cliff overlooking the sea, looking out to see, obviously waiting. Then you see Will Turner on the ship as it sails in to meet them. Big smiles all around.

[randwill]

Can you spoil it for me? I, in my infinite wisdom, left before the credits were started. Doesn't help that a fire alarm got pulled just at that moment too.A fire alarm is one thing, but this is another little pet peeve of mine. Dummies who go running out of the theater the micro-second the credits appear. What, do they think they're going to win something for being out first? In many cases they miss a "credit cookie", or extra scene tacked onto the end. In one case, at least, "Dawn of the Dead" (2004), the movie continued through the credits to the end. The people who jumped up when the credits started missed seeing the fate of the remaining characters. If your bladder can stand it, you should never leave until the screen goes dark.

[RandMcnally]

A fire alarm is one thing, but this is another little pet peeve of mine. Dummies who go running out of the theater the micro-second the credits appear. What, do they think they're going to win something for being out first? In many cases they miss a "credit cookie", or extra scene tacked onto the end. In one case, at least, "Dawn of the Dead" (2004), the movie continued through the credits to the end. The people who jumped up when the credits started missed seeing the fate of the remaining characters. If your bladder can stand it, you should never leave until the screen goes dark.


I agree with you. I usually stay till the end, but the people I'm usually with leave, so I have to.