'Pirates' goes down with the ship

Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by TheRustyScupper, May 25, 2007.

  1. TheRustyScupper

    TheRustyScupper Just once, I want to see a liar's pants on fire.

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2000
    Messages:
    20,839
    '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.)


    ****************************************************
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. TheRustyScupper

    TheRustyScupper Just once, I want to see a liar's pants on fire.

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2000
    Messages:
    20,839
    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.
     
  4. DisneyGirl4188

    DisneyGirl4188 <font color=purple>Mike's Princess<br><font color=

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,295
    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.
     
  5. BriarRabbit

    BriarRabbit <font color=red>BR, do you think you need protecti

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    181
    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.
     
  6. YoHo

    YoHo If you have any poo to fling, now is the time.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1999
    Messages:
    3,447
    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.
     
  7. EUROPACL

    EUROPACL DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    ...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.
     
  8. MasterShake

    MasterShake Sir, you are drunk……………… And you, madam, are ugly.

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    159
    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:
     
  9. YoHo

    YoHo If you have any poo to fling, now is the time.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1999
    Messages:
    3,447
    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.
     
  10. MasterShake

    MasterShake Sir, you are drunk……………… And you, madam, are ugly.

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    159
    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.
     
  11. crazy4wdw

    crazy4wdw DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,320
    :stir:
     
  12. MasterShake

    MasterShake Sir, you are drunk……………… And you, madam, are ugly.

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    159
    :confused3 :rolleyes1

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

    EUROPACL DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    Easy there big fellow....I'm spoken for.
     
  14. mickeymedic

    mickeymedic <font color=red>Loves Off Kilter<br><font color=te

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,742
    It looks like I may be in the minority here, but I loved Pirates 3. This was my favorite of the 3.
     
  15. MickaMaizie

    MickaMaizie Maizie and Hailey are my Disney Princesses

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Messages:
    201
    I thought it was great! My whole family loved it! pirate: It was a long movie, but it didn't feel long.
     
  16. EUROPACL

    EUROPACL DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    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.
     
  17. kidsister

    kidsister DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    570
    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?.
     
  18. Nom

    Nom Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    436
    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.
     
  19. Planogirl

    Planogirl I feel the nerd in me stirring

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2000
    Messages:
    43,051
    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.
     
  20. YoHo

    YoHo If you have any poo to fling, now is the time.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1999
    Messages:
    3,447
    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.
     
  21. EUROPACL

    EUROPACL DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    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/
     

Share This Page