Are the first two Pirates of the Caribbean any good?

Cafe Society
21

Oh yes. Tons of fun. Don’t expect great depth or anything, but for swashbuckling, actiony, visually pleasing comedy, the series delivers.

I’m in the vast minority in that I liked the second movie better than the first. It had significant flaws, but it was just so much FUN. That’s what I wanted out of it, so I was happy as a horse in hay. (I was fascinated by the Flying Dutchman and Davy Jones, also-- much more so than with Barbossa & his crew/ship-- which did a lot to put it a cut above the first movie for me.)

Anyway, these are pretty essential viewing for the times, and well worth the space on your queue.

22

The first was witty and entertaining and definitely worth seeing, and the second one was too long, and not terribly witty or interesting. The sequels really seem like a cash-in on the popularity of the first, and the second movie was mostly a mash up of poorly thought-out nods to jokes from the first movie held together by a twisting, unentertaining plot. The characters that weren’t that interesting in the first movie (I never cared for Will or Elizabeth) are even less so in the second. Even Jack Sparrow, who basically carried the first movie, is kind of annoying in the sequel.

Bottom line: Go ahead and Netflix the first one, if you feel like you want more, try the second one, but try and save it for a time that you have nothing better to do.

23

:dubious: :stuck_out_tongue:

24

One thing I appreciated about the first movie was that it held together - it didn’t seem like a bunch of semi-random scenes that had been thrown together because they were individually entertaining. Characters and events and dialogue were put in because they served the plot as a whole as well as being entertaining.

The second movie (and all too many other action and/or comedy movies) lacked this quality. There were pieces that seemed to have been added without regard for how well they fit.

25

The first one is amazingly tight as a movie - for what it is (granted it isn’t L.A. Confidential sort of tight - it doesn’t need to be). It doesn’t leave plot holes you can drive a truck through. It makes sense. What doesn’t make sense the first time through makes sense the second time through. Its fairly well acted (it does have Orlando Bloom in it - you can almost see the gears working in his head as he acts “here I look serious, now here I need to smile” (its an improvement over everyone’s favorite great actor of our generation, Keanu - but maybe not by much).) There aren’t unnecessary scenes.

The second two - which are really one six hour long convoluted plot with turns that make no sense - are pretty much the opposite of tight. They make no sense, need vast amounts of editing, need someone to go through the script with a scissors and remove most of the movie. They can still be fun, but are probably more fun on your own TV while drinking.

26

Meh.

They are meh-ish. Too childish IMHO.

27

I think “tight” is the perfect way to describe the first movie. It really has no superfluous scene (IMHO, obviously), everything serves its piratey entertainment purpose - of course, it’s not Fellini or Bergman, but not every movie has to be. It’s just good fun. There is swashbuckling, and sparkly dialogue, and Johnny Depp, and sailing, and cannons firing, and a surprisingly good plot (after all, it was derived from a Disney ride, who’d have thunk).

As others have described above, the other two movies lose that tightness completely and come across as purely a money-making franchise. Which they were, so there’s that. I disliked the second one the most, as it took all the elements that made the first part fun, and re-used them again and again and AGAIN until they ceased to be (again, IMHO). In addition, it introduced the convoluted plot that also cripples the third movie.

The third movie is a bit more original, and uses “callbacks” more sparingly. I thought it had some great scenes, but they all were rather disjointed, as the plot does nothing to keep things together. Due to the “plot” exposition, though, it’s about 3 hours too long (at least it felt that way). But, if you’ve watched the second movie, there’s really no reason not to watch the third, as it (well, mostly) resolves the plot set up in the second.

[strange pet theory hijack]

Funnily enough, I think if you look at the respective scores, they perfectly illustrate the development of the movies:

The score of the first is really excellent, setting the mood and punctuating the action. (BTW if you pay attention, you’ll notice this score popping up in odd places - in sports reports, in news segments, etc.) It’s rollicking good fun, and written by Klaus Badelt.

The second movie had him replaced by Hans Zimmer, who Badelt is affiliated with, but who is the “bigger name” in Hollywood music. I usually love Hans Zimmer (sue me), but this I feel was not his best effort. He took the first score, and blew it up, re-using themes in places where they did not really make sense, basically just overloading everything. Bigger, but not better.

Now the third movie was again scored by Hans Zimmer, but occasionally used complete parts from part one (I think seemingly unchanged - I’ve not listened to that score separately, but I’ve been running to the first score on my ipod for about a year now, and I think I have it down pat). But, in addition, there were more new ideas integrated into the score that fit the different settings and were not just derivatives of the first.

[/spth]

28

I’m not a big fan of Johnny Depp, but I thought the first one was great. I agree with the descriptions of ‘tight’ above. There’s no obvious exposition, no lolling moments waiting for the next relevant thing to happen. It’s a bit innocent and obvious in the was the characters are written, but it just works really well as a whole.