PDA

View Full Version : 'Pirates' goes down with the ship


TheRustyScupper
05-25-2007, 09:19 AM
'Pirates' goes down with the ship (USA Today, 5/25/2007)

In AWE of pirates: Geoffrey Rush stars as Barbossa, Keira Knightley as Elizabeth and Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow in At World's End.


By Claudia Puig, USA TODAY
The pirate ship has hit foul waters, and even the sharp wit and charm of everyone's favorite buccaneer can't save it.
One longs for more scenes featuring Captain Jack Sparrow, Johnny Depp's indelible and beloved character in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (* 1/2 out of four), and less of everything else in this bloated, overwrought and convoluted three-hour misfire.

Depp is in only about half of the movie, which is a tactical error in this third — and worst — installment of the 2003 surprise hit. Instead, the movie is overloaded with extraneous characters and weighed down by muddled seafaring mythology.

Surprisingly, the anticipated appearance of Keith Richards as Sparrow's father falls flat. And does anybody care about the plight of Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa or that of the unctuous and corrupt Brits (Tom Hollander and Jack Davenport)? We care a jot about what happens to lovers Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), and it is fun to lay eyes again on Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) with his face full of writhing tentacles.

But let's be honest: It's all about Jack. He's what made the first movie a hit. And, as a Hollywood dealmaker might put it, the franchise hinges on him. So why crowd the movie with an ever-expanding cast no one cares about? And why run aground a seafaring adventure saga with tedious scenes of a pirates' council as they discuss administrative matters?

Not that the action sequences fare much better. The high-seas mayhem blurs, explosions grow numbing, and most land sequences end in a brawl. Initially, Turner, Swann, Barbossa and other familiar plunderers sail off to free Sparrow from Davy Jones' locker. Then the story gets as murky as the undersea world that Sparrow's Black Pearl is plunged into.

Visually, the film has some note-worthy moments. The production design is eye-catching, particularly in the opening scenes set in Singapore. The "fish people" aboard Davy Jones' ship remain captivating with their hammerhead shark heads and barnacled visages.

But this "threequel" sinks under the weight of its own pretensions and flounders with its protracted, nonsensical plot. And as if it weren't long enough, a key scene is tacked on after the credits.

Just before the film's end, a drunken pillager growls out: "Take what you can. Give nothing back." Mindful of a predecessor that raked in more than $1 billion worldwide, that greedy directive might have been the mantra of the studio execs who conceived of this sorry spectacle. (Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action/adventure violence and some frightening images. Running time: 2 hours, 48 minutes. Opens Thursday nationwide.)


************************************************** **

TheRustyScupper
05-25-2007, 09:27 AM
1) I agree with the above review.
2) In fact, there have been several other reviews close to this.

3) We saw Pirates-3 yesterday at noon, Thursday.
4) It was a business pay-back to several community leaders.
5) It left me asking why I spent three-hours at the movies.
6) Doctor Zhivago it isn't.

7) Our thoughts and personal opinion:
. . . it went crazy with the special effects
. . . there was little acting or plot, just noise and effects
. . . the effects were so loud in the last hour, you couldn't hear the actors
. . . we missed Capt Jack - HE is the reason for the movie
. . . we didn't see Depp suring the first hour
. . . reminded us of difference between Star Wars IV and Stars Wars I
. . . forget the story and crank up the graphics
. . . we don't evwn know if we will buy the DVD

8) I am sure it will make a lot of money, but mainly overseas
. . . #1 earned $600-million, 1/2 from overseas
. . . #2 earned $1.1-billion, 2/3 from overseas
. . . #3 was aimed at overseas, not USA market

NOTE: It should be noted that even ABC gave it a poor review on Good Morning America. They said there should be a "Cliffs Notes" version of Pirates, so people know what is happening and get nore acting.

DisneyGirl4188
05-25-2007, 11:00 AM
We saw the movie last night and thought it was great (as did everyone else in the theater).

I don't understand why people say they had a hard time following the movie. I had no issues. I didn't think it was too long; the three hours pasted quickly and I could have watched a lot more.

BriarRabbit
05-25-2007, 12:27 PM
Here's my review with some spoilers. popcorn::
I took my son last night to the 8PM showing. He wore his Jack Sparrow dreadlocks and hat that he bought in Disneyland. Hardly anyone else dressed as Pirates! At the last one, at least half of the crowd had Pirate hats, bandanas, eye patches, or swords. (I wore my Pittsburgh Pirates hat)
I thought that the movie was visually stunning. So much detail in the Singapore and pirate counsel scenes.
It was very long. Everyone continued to make deals throughout the movie. I thought we'd see a deal for Pirates 4 struck onscreen before the end.
Not enough Jack Sparrow. We didn't see enough of his cleverness and persona from the first two films. And that part with all of the Jacks in the desert was too strange. (OK, now that was too much Jack Sparrow)
Will seemed too whiney and Elizabeth was turning into Xena, princess warrior. Tia was a letdown.
Barbossa was great and is the ultimate Pirate. Jack the monkey was more likeable. The familiar crew were good and the two late additions were a nice touch.
It was definitely worth seeing but could have been better. I was hoping for a 9 or 10 but I'll give it an 8.

YoHo
05-25-2007, 02:05 PM
I saw it. I loved it, but it wasn't what I'd call a good movie. I think it was better then the second.

Both this and the second were long, but I was never bored in this movie the way I was in Dead Man's Chest.

I've heard very mixed reviews, so we'll see how it does. I don't think it will do as well as two, but then I never understood why two did so well.

EUROPACL
05-25-2007, 02:29 PM
...just got back from the movie. While better than the second ...it was still very ho-hum. Its hard to put my finger on it. Just not that good of a movie. More plot lines that go nowhere, more useless characters added. I'm sure it will make tons of money though.

MasterShake
05-25-2007, 03:48 PM
...just got back from the movie. While better than the second ...it was still very ho-hum. Its hard to put my finger on it. Just not that good of a movie. More plot lines that go nowhere, more useless characters added. I'm sure it will make tons of money though.

I've been off for a few days, but I noticed that nearly every thread you have posted on lately has been closed by the moderator. I think they have it out for you...... :confused3

Haven't seen it yet, hoping to go this weekend. Trailers look amazing and I hope it's good. I was really disappointed in Shrek 3. :sad2:

YoHo
05-25-2007, 03:57 PM
Really? You were disappointed in Shrek 3? I thought it was pretty good. I really didn't like the first one all that much, but this one was pretty good. I mean, it wasn't super awesomely awesome, but pretty good.

MasterShake
05-25-2007, 06:04 PM
Really? You were disappointed in Shrek 3? I thought it was pretty good. I really didn't like the first one all that much, but this one was pretty good. I mean, it wasn't super awesomely awesome, but pretty good.

I liked Shrek 1, but I was blown away by Shrek 2. I loved the animation, story, music, and it introduced some awesome new characters. The animation for Shrek 3 was absolutely amazing, but I didn't think the story or new characters were that good. I didn't think it was nearly as funny as the second movie. I thought Shrek was too nice and I liked it much better when the cat and donkey were fighting. Also, I really liked Jennifer Saunders in the second film. Wasn't interested in the characters "Artie" and "Merlin" in this movie. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't nearly as good (IMO) as number 2.

crazy4wdw
05-25-2007, 06:56 PM
I've been off for a few days, but I noticed that nearly every thread you have posted on lately has been closed by the moderator. I think they have it out for you...... :confused3

:stir:

MasterShake
05-25-2007, 07:47 PM
:stir:

:confused3 :rolleyes1

Don't start coming after me.... :rotfl2:

EUROPACL
05-25-2007, 09:12 PM
I've been off for a few days, but I noticed that nearly every thread you have posted on lately has been closed by the moderator.

Easy there big fellow....I'm spoken for.

mickeymedic
05-25-2007, 10:57 PM
It looks like I may be in the minority here, but I loved Pirates 3. This was my favorite of the 3.

MickaMaizie
05-25-2007, 11:11 PM
I thought it was great! My whole family loved it! pirate: It was a long movie, but it didn't feel long.

EUROPACL
05-26-2007, 12:37 AM
This post was edited as the quoted statement was a personal attack. The post that contained the quoted statement has been deleted from the thread.

1. You may need to post by numbers.
2. I don't think he understand without numbers in front of words.
3. Again numbers are the key.

kidsister
05-26-2007, 01:00 AM
I keep telling myself that the reason why 2 and 3 weren't as good as the first was because none of us knew what to expect in the first and we were blown away by this zany,campy, effete character that J. Depp created. The great one liners and the character interaction were just perfect. So, how could they top that, because now we were expecting MORE of what we loved in the first movie.

Two was disappointing to me because even the one liners seemed forced. The special effects couldn't make up for what the movie lacked...even tho the special effects were good (well especiall Davy Jones and Will's dad)
I believe it grew on me, as I liked it better the second time around.
I thought that Gore would take note of the comments and make sure that the 3rd had the same feel as the first. Instead...starting out with a child being hanged is just not a 'Disney' effect. Didnt you expect that someone would save the child ? A friend of mine took her 7 year old and he was really bothered by this opening. Then, the surreal scenes with Jack hallucinating...yep, I love looking at Jack, but even I thought it was just too weird. And what up with all the new characters that contributed nothing to either plot or action. I kept thinking: please don't make me try to remember their names.

I liked the ending...if you are quick, you can duck out to pee when the credits start and still make it back in time for the last scene...No one in the theatre, except us stayed for this...thought that was strange too.

Maybe it will grow on me more, like the 2nd one eventually did. But really, they could have saved millions in special effects had they paid some new writers to give Jack some decent material to work with. (It isn't that I didn't like most of the special effects..the boat in the sand effects, the maelstrom, the waterfall....but it seems most of us were there to see and hear jack and friends get themselves in and out of trouble. Do overs?.

Nom
05-26-2007, 08:45 AM
I thought 2 was bloated, so judging by reviews, this sounds even worse. what a shame- I was psyched to see the return of barbarosa.

Planogirl
05-26-2007, 12:24 PM
I've seen reviews all over the place for this one and generally speaking, if the critics hate it I will love it. So I'm not worried the least bit.

YoHo
05-26-2007, 01:07 PM
This one IS bloated. Of that there is no doubt. I would say that as far as the construction of movies go, this one is pretty poor. Star Wars Prequels poor.

But, Like some of th eprequels, there's a lot going on that is fun, Barbossa, Sparrow, they're still providing interest.

So, I think in the end, It's a fun movie despite itself? Kinda how I found Return of the Sith. Fun despite it being horrible.

The problem is they spent $300 Million plus advertising on it.

EUROPACL
05-26-2007, 05:42 PM
I've seen reviews all over the place for this one and generally speaking, if the critics hate it I will love it. So I'm not worried the least bit.

Rotten tomatoes has it looking pretty grim right now. I think its a case where people wanted to like it so much they can't really see it for what it is....a bad movie.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pirates_of_the_caribbean_3/

YoHo
05-26-2007, 06:34 PM
It's not grim on the user ratings. both of which are tracking about the same as they did for #2.

For whatever that's worth.

EUROPACL
05-26-2007, 06:46 PM
It's not grim on the user ratings. both of which are tracking about the same as they did for #2.

For whatever that's worth.

Sorry yeah I was thinking in my head...grim on critics side....users want to like it.

umbluegray
05-26-2007, 11:20 PM
We saw it last night (Fri). The theater we went to had it showing on 5 screens. All the Thursday night showings had sold as as had all the Friday night showings.

I thought it was good. It was better than I anticipated.

I tend to see a movie like this (any of the POTC series as well as the Lord of the Rings series) 2 or 3 times before I make my final determination. The first time through there are so many things you can miss. It takes another viewing or two to catch everything.

So far, so good.

But, is it just me or did they leave it wide open for a fourth if they so choose?

ParrotBill
05-27-2007, 12:14 PM
Our local critic gave it an 8 and so did my family Friday night.

The only weaknesses, I thought, were

* A few too many main characters to follow
* Lacked an epic comedic fight (a la the fight on the wheel rolling through the forest or the cannibals chase in Pirate 2)

CaipiraBob
05-28-2007, 05:49 AM
'And does anybody care about the plight of Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa...

I thought Barbossa was the best character out of all of them. Depp's character was an effeminate fop next to him. I enjoy detailed pirate movies and the sets are spectacular in this series, so I'll probably go to this one to see how it ends.

Luv2Roam
05-28-2007, 07:41 AM
We both liked it. :thumbsup2 I think it is like most movies -- all personal taste on what people like. (I did not and will not bother watching Spiderman 2 or 3.)
I think all the pirates movies have something for most everyone.
It certainly starts out morbid. That was part of showing the more than bleak outlook ahead for the pirates.
Some places were a bit too long, like the first surreal Jack dead scene.
Too bad about the Kraken.
Good ending too.
Actually with all the hoopla over special effects, I was expecting more.
The only part I thought was lackluster was the gigantic Calypso. That could have been done where it did not look like an old Sci-Fi movie trailer. Not that the effects were bad. Just could hav been done better.
Overall very good.
I will be seeing it again later this week. Like the last film, I expect I will notice things I missed the first time.
AWE is a summer must see!

ppiew
05-28-2007, 08:00 AM
We saw it yesterday, and yes, it was 'good' but not great. It really needed some Jack Sparrow humor! Thought Barbossa was great along with the two pirates (one with the glass eye - can't remember their names).. Is there a spoiler for another Pirates movie - you bet! Remember the map at the end? I can see Pirates of the Caribbean - Fountain of Youth coming already. Yes, some should have ended on the cutting room floor. I like long movies, but this exhausted the purpose for length.

fireplug
05-28-2007, 08:10 AM
We went to the movie theater for three hours of entertainment. We enjoyed the show and didnt feel it was too long. All in all it was an entertaining and fun to watch movie.

Squid

MJMcBride
05-28-2007, 12:47 PM
The problem is they spent $300 Million plus advertising on it.

Yet, they will still make a mint on it.

Another Voice
05-28-2007, 12:56 PM
Yet, they will still make a mint on it.
Jerry Bruckheimer, who gets a cut from the first dollar received, is going to make a mint. Disney, who has to pay all those nasty costs of making the thing and all those TV ads, is a long, long way from seeing any profit. And that - profit and not revenue - is the grown-up game here.

miss missy
05-30-2007, 01:11 AM
We saw the movie last night and thought it was great (as did everyone else in the theater).

I don't understand why people say they had a hard time following the movie. I had no issues. I didn't think it was too long; the three hours pasted quickly and I could have watched a lot more.

Big fan here, I saw it twice. The first time I was lost... then went to another theater, digital dolby... much much better!! I was lost the first time because I couldn hear... it matters a lot that you see it at a good theater. I loved it!

Killer Fish
05-30-2007, 02:27 AM
Jerry Bruckheimer, who gets a cut from the first dollar received, is going to make a mint. Disney, who has to pay all those nasty costs of making the thing and all those TV ads, is a long, long way from seeing any profit. And that - profit and not revenue - is the grown-up game here.

Are you trying to say the Billion that they hit in Global Box Office from the last one plus DVD sales did not make them any money. Not saying this one will have the same legs but even if it only does equal to the amount of the 400 million worldwide from the first 5 days it puts it at 800 million before DVD sales. I find it almost impossible to believe that Disney is not making some serious bank off of this. Although you probably know a lot more than I do about the subject.

Another Voice
05-30-2007, 11:28 AM
Are you trying to say the Billion that they hit in Global Box Office from the last one plus DVD sales did not make them any money.
It's not on the revenue side that's the problem. It's the cost to make the movie.

According to the buzz, Disney spent about $325-$350 million just to film At World's End. Add to that another $200-$250 million to market and distribute the movie. We're already at over half a billion dollars in costs.

Now on the revenue side, you can figure that the studio gets roughly half to sixty percent of the box office take (the theaters and international distriubtors get the rest). Of the the cash that does actualy flow into Disney, Jerry Bruckheimer gets an undisclosed (but large, rumored to be close to 20%) cut from every dollar. His company actually made the movie (Disney just paid for it). In addition, it's more than likely that Johnny Depp, the director and other "talent" involoved are also getting cuts. As well as Industrial Light and Magic - George Lucas likes to get those cuts as well. All of these skims off the top are reflected as expenses on the studio's books.

So yes, the box office take is huge, but when you wittle away the revenues and take into account the costs...there's a lot less for Disney than one would expect.

Disney has always had a horrible track record at controlling costs - from Dick Tracy to Pearl Harbor to this. What's really funny is that Eisner cancelled The Lord of the Rings because he thought it would too expensive - but they made all three movies for less than Disney spent on At World's End.

Compare that to a movie like 300. It's brought in $450 million in worldwide box office - but it only cost $60 million to make and less than $25 million to market. It was made with a cast and crew that worked just for salary. The film is already generated a huge profit and it's still playing in theaters around the globe; DVD and TV sales are nothing but pure sweet profit. The box office take might not be as large as At World's End, but the profit - the result that really matters to a corporation - is substantially higher.

Box office take is an impressive number for the studio suits to swing around - but Disney is a business afterall. You have to read all the way down the income statement, not just focus on the top line.

Killer Fish
05-30-2007, 01:53 PM
Ok I understand that they are not getting quite as much flow through as they want but are they really making that small of an amount. How does DVD sales factor in. Aren't those almost complete profit for Disney. I would think that they would make a ton from the DVD release and even if they just broke even from the theatrical run they would make bushels from the DVDs. Plus while they spent a ton to market what about all of the additional merchandise that is purchased just because of the movies. They brought Pirates back to the mainstream and it was definitely the most popular costume last halloween.

Another Voice
05-30-2007, 04:33 PM
Actually, today most movies loose money during their theatrical release. The studio's profits come from DVD sales. Putting a movie into the local movie house is really considered just marketing for home video. This is where Disney is hoping to make up the most money. But again - Bruckheimer and others get their cut as well, so it's not like Disney gets the full $29.95 you pay for the disc. While I suspect At World's End will close out its theatrical run in a deficit (we'll never know the real numbers, accountants with that kind of information are buried alive in the Valley to keep those secrets away from Wall Street), Disney should turn a profit with DVD.

But it won't be anywhere near as huge as the general public suspects it will be when they see "FOUR HUNDRED MILLION IN BOX OFFICE!!!!".

Merchandise is, at best, a little frosting on the cake. Movies that can generate real cash are few and far between. Pirates is not one of those films. Most merchandise sales are childern's toys, and Pirates is no Star Wars or Transformers. Since most products are produced and sold under license, Disney will get a 5% cut...enough to keep the studio corporate offices supplied with baggles on Friday, but hardly a Disney-sized fortune.

The economics of Hollywood work very differently than most other industries. The town has been at this game for a long time before all the corporations showed up and little has changed. The simple game is that movies make individuals wealthy, not companies. Jerry Bruckheimer will end up with more cash from Pirates than The Walt Disney Company will. Johnny Depp will get far more than the shareholders will ever see on the bottom line. Yes, box office figures and pictures of red carpet premieries looks real nice in the annual reports, but the financial reality of Hollywood is buried out of site.

It's the reason there are any "just" movie studios anymore. All of the big media companies are tied to other businesses - Columbia (Spider-man 3) is part of Sony, Dreamworks (Shrek the Third) is now part of Viacom, Universal (Evan Almighty) is backed up by General Electric - even Disney relies on the theme parks to keep the corporation flush with cash.

Walt and Pixar had the best business models going for Hollywood - spend what you need to make the best movie possible (no more, no less), make the movie internally and avoid high-priced, low talent "stars", and churn all your profits back into the company. Today's Disney uses the current Hollywood model - the same model that is destroying the town. As much money as At World's End is making, there are too many people with their hands out..too much personal and corporate greed...for the company to gain the full benefits of a "hit".

Killer Fish
05-30-2007, 09:00 PM
If the flowthrough is that poor then why do all of these companies even bother making these movies. It seems by the logic from above unless you have a small market movie that turns into a major success there is no reason to make the movie. I just find it hard to believe that if Disney knew about all the cuts that everyone was going to get that they would spend what they did on the two sequels without thinking that they were going to end up with significant profit.

EUROPACL
05-30-2007, 09:08 PM
I just find it hard to believe that if Disney knew about all the cuts that everyone was going to get that they would spend what they did on the two sequels without thinking that they were going to end up with significant profit.

Really "hard to believe"...you should take a quick look back at the last 15 years and rethink that about Disney.

Another Voice
05-31-2007, 11:20 AM
It seems by the logic from above unless you have a small market movie that turns into a major success there is no reason to make the movie.
Welcome to Hollywood.

The first Pirates. Curse of the Black Pearl was exactly what you described - a most $150 million movie that made a fortune. It made Bruckheimer, Disney and a lot of other people a lot of money.

This is the point where greed kicks in. Like I wrote, the economics of the industry are designed to make a few individuals rich, not companies. Everyone sees a huge hit, everyone wants to even more.

So sequels are designed. But everyone now wants more than the go the last time. Everyone is convinced that they and they alone are the reason the first movie was a hit. They essentially blackmail the studio - you want Johnny Depp as 'Jack Sparrow' again...how about another castle in France? So the sequel starts costing a lot more money.

But now that the sequel costs a lot more money, which means it will have to make a lot more money. So the pressure grows to make the movie bigger, louder, more explosions - all the stuff that Hollywood thinks will attract a bigger audience. This, of course, costs money.

So costs go up again, which means the movie has to be "bigger" yet. And costs go up again. No one really starts out to make a movie that costs so much, it just happens. It's a spiral that takes a firm business hand and steady, rational leadership to stop.

And Hollywood has never, ever, been the place for rational people (just look at the politics out here).

The really scary thing is that At World's End isn't even the worst that's happened. Last year Warner Brothers spent a lot more money on Superman Returns and that movie absolutely tanked at the box office.

There is a reason every studio in Hollywood - with the exception of Disney - has been sold off and swallowed by a major outside company. Making movies today is a completely irrational business. That’s why it’s so distressing to see Disney head down the same “summer blockbuster” business plan that has destroyed all the other studios.

They way of doing business simply doesn’t work.

What made the first Pirates so fun were the characters. Yes, the skeletons and stuff were interesting – but it was Jack Sparrow, the monkey, Barabosa “but why is the rum gone” – that everyone had the fun with.

I would much rather watch Jack Sparrow in a row boat in all his “flamboyant” best trying to talk his way out of a situation than watch a $50 million of special effects sequence of crabs carrying the ‘Black Pearl’ over sand dunes.

Good movies don’t have to cost $350 million to make. All it takes is a good idea, a good script and talented, hard working people to pull it all together.

YoHo
05-31-2007, 05:02 PM
I hate when the Rum is gone.