WDWparadetech1
New Member
I loved the movie. The effects were excellent and the acting was very good.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
what did you think about POTC? (movie)
- Thread starter monorailguy01
- Start date
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
As a film I thought it was good. As a sequel to the first, I thought it was lacking, though. This was an action film; the first one was a bit more artistic and creative. I agree that the spirit was lost through the plot and the character development in this one.
Ellen Ripley
Well-Known Member
Japhy said:
I completely agree. I enjoyed the first one much more.
I also agree with imagineer99 that it wasn't much fun.
meryll83
Member
Well i really liked it!!
I thought it was all very tongue in cheek and I loved all the references to the first film "sea turtles / not so easy is it?"
In fact I might go and see it again this weekend.....
I think this one is more fast paced, I guess that's coz they don't have to introduce it all
I thought it was all very tongue in cheek and I loved all the references to the first film "sea turtles / not so easy is it?"
In fact I might go and see it again this weekend.....
I think this one is more fast paced, I guess that's coz they don't have to introduce it all
DisneyRoxMySox
Well-Known Member
imagineer99 said:
I thought it was a great movie. Can't wait for the third.
Overreliance on CGI? Umm, in the first movie..the curse? CGI, was most of the later half of that movie.
wbboy29
Member
I LOVED it!!!! I've seen it twice already and plan on seeing it for a third time this weekend.
I can't wait for part 3 next May. Only 10 months to go, woo HOO!!!! If you thought this one was good just you wait, part 3 will be the best. Of course I may be a little biased.....:lookaroun hahahaha
I can't wait for part 3 next May. Only 10 months to go, woo HOO!!!! If you thought this one was good just you wait, part 3 will be the best. Of course I may be a little biased.....:lookaroun hahahaha
imagineer99
New Member
DisneyRoxMySox said:
Well, considering in the first one, the "cursed" pirates were human except when in the moonlight, it seemed like I was watching humans on screen even during the computer generated segments. The effects were an accent--not a focal point. This movie was like an orgy of uncessary and UNINTERESTING characters.
Every time they went back to Davey Jones's lame ship, I was crying out of boredom. Sorry, but fish-people don't interest me, and neither does the horrendous plot that was purposely complex for no logistical reason. Why have a cannibal island? It serves no purpose,except for some poorly executed jokes. An hour could have been cut from the film, and frankly, it wouldn't have mattered.
As one critic put it,
If the average Joe liked it, who am I to take away from that enjoyment? But, from a cinematic perspective, Dead Man's Chest is a leaky ship indeed.
DisneyRoxMySox
Well-Known Member
Well, you now bring up some other good points. I suppose the story line wasn't the greatest, but I am not one to judge until I have seen the third film. As I think the second movie never really had an ending.
Overall, as I said, I enjoyed the film. I must admit, I didn't always enjoy watching the scary looking fish people. But I think we should say let's see where it goes, the third film could be the greatest movie ever to grace the silver screen and it might make the second film seem more meaningful to have the storyline it did.
I eagerly await the third film, as I am sure millions of others do.
Overall, as I said, I enjoyed the film. I must admit, I didn't always enjoy watching the scary looking fish people. But I think we should say let's see where it goes, the third film could be the greatest movie ever to grace the silver screen and it might make the second film seem more meaningful to have the storyline it did.
I eagerly await the third film, as I am sure millions of others do.
imagineer99
New Member
I plan on seeing the third film no doubt (being a Disney fan, of course). But, I won't be rushing into theatres for it. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth, especially considering how well-paced and fun the first movie was.
Great trilogies know how to bait the viewer into the next film, but they do so in a way that is clear, entertaining, and developed. Look at Back to the Future or even Star Wars. The second films are some of the best in the entire trilogy. And, amazingly, their plots are not needlessly complex or oversaturated with more stimulation than actual content. Visceral should never be a replacement for the "real," even in this world of hyper media and computer wizardry.
Great trilogies know how to bait the viewer into the next film, but they do so in a way that is clear, entertaining, and developed. Look at Back to the Future or even Star Wars. The second films are some of the best in the entire trilogy. And, amazingly, their plots are not needlessly complex or oversaturated with more stimulation than actual content. Visceral should never be a replacement for the "real," even in this world of hyper media and computer wizardry.
imagineer boy
Well-Known Member
I dunno, I think I'm one of the few that thought the Davy Jones crew looked awesome. I thought their design was cool, and they looked very realistic.
And as for the story, I thought it was decent. It just felt a little incomplete and has some loose ends, because, let's face it people, its a middle movie. It has very similar story structure to BTTF part 2, Empire Strikes Back, and LOTR Two Towers. Besides, look at it in contrast to Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded litterally had no story what so ever, and just had a bunch of random, pointless fight sequences.
EDIT: and one more thing about the Cannible sequence. It serves many purposes even though it may seem a little pointless. If it was dropped entirely, the movie would be without any action sequence until Tortuga. This would leave the audience very bored. It basically does what the sword fight between Will and Jack in the last movie did. The Will vs. Jack fight in the last movie, when you think about it, was about as pointless as the cannible sequence, but it provides with some much needed action without being too random.
And as for the story, I thought it was decent. It just felt a little incomplete and has some loose ends, because, let's face it people, its a middle movie. It has very similar story structure to BTTF part 2, Empire Strikes Back, and LOTR Two Towers. Besides, look at it in contrast to Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded litterally had no story what so ever, and just had a bunch of random, pointless fight sequences.
EDIT: and one more thing about the Cannible sequence. It serves many purposes even though it may seem a little pointless. If it was dropped entirely, the movie would be without any action sequence until Tortuga. This would leave the audience very bored. It basically does what the sword fight between Will and Jack in the last movie did. The Will vs. Jack fight in the last movie, when you think about it, was about as pointless as the cannible sequence, but it provides with some much needed action without being too random.
imagineer99
New Member
See, now you're pointing out flaws in the film, but are just not completely admitting it...
The cannibal scene IS pointless. If a film sequence is just thrown in to provide "action" to break-up the boredom, than well, the screenwriters aren't doing their job, are they? A good adventure script knows how to use action scenes to propel the story along. I love a good sword fight and escape sequence, but such things should not be randomly thrown in simply to bait the viewer and keep them from checking their watches.
Even with the cannibal scene, I was still bored up until the final half-hour. Why? Because the action didn't MEAN anything. It did nothing to aid the story. The only part of the movie I enjoyed was the final half-hour, because both literally and figuratively, "the ball" got rolling.
As for the Will/Jack fight scene in the first movie, it actually is quite important to the movie's structure. Here's a couple of reasons off the top of my head:
1.) It establishes that Jack recognizes Will's face (thus setting up the bootstrap connection and Jack's following plan to use Will for his benefit).
2.) It proves that Will is quite a good sword fighter (much better than Jack).
3.) It proves his devotion to Elizabeth, further establishing their romantic relationship.
4.) Will's disdain for pirates is established--thus making his conversion into one all the more ironic.
5.) Jack is revealed to be a supreme trickster--a man who is willing to cheat when he knows he is bested. This duality of his character keeps you guessing all the way throughout. Is he good? Is he bad? Is he both?
6.) Jack's gun subplot is further developed. We find out that the single shot in the bullet is "meant for somebody else."
7.) We find out that Will has a knack for throwing a sword (he uses one to prevent Jack from escaping.) This skill comes in handy for the final "escape" sequence, where Will prevents Jack from hanging by using a thrown sword to catch his fall.
8.) It's bloody fun to watch.
The cannibal scene IS pointless. If a film sequence is just thrown in to provide "action" to break-up the boredom, than well, the screenwriters aren't doing their job, are they? A good adventure script knows how to use action scenes to propel the story along. I love a good sword fight and escape sequence, but such things should not be randomly thrown in simply to bait the viewer and keep them from checking their watches.
Even with the cannibal scene, I was still bored up until the final half-hour. Why? Because the action didn't MEAN anything. It did nothing to aid the story. The only part of the movie I enjoyed was the final half-hour, because both literally and figuratively, "the ball" got rolling.
As for the Will/Jack fight scene in the first movie, it actually is quite important to the movie's structure. Here's a couple of reasons off the top of my head:
1.) It establishes that Jack recognizes Will's face (thus setting up the bootstrap connection and Jack's following plan to use Will for his benefit).
2.) It proves that Will is quite a good sword fighter (much better than Jack).
3.) It proves his devotion to Elizabeth, further establishing their romantic relationship.
4.) Will's disdain for pirates is established--thus making his conversion into one all the more ironic.
5.) Jack is revealed to be a supreme trickster--a man who is willing to cheat when he knows he is bested. This duality of his character keeps you guessing all the way throughout. Is he good? Is he bad? Is he both?
6.) Jack's gun subplot is further developed. We find out that the single shot in the bullet is "meant for somebody else."
7.) We find out that Will has a knack for throwing a sword (he uses one to prevent Jack from escaping.) This skill comes in handy for the final "escape" sequence, where Will prevents Jack from hanging by using a thrown sword to catch his fall.
8.) It's bloody fun to watch.
DisneyRoxMySox
Well-Known Member
I am going to go out on a limb and try to make a really good excuse. I think I am correct in saying that the second and third movies were filmed at the same time, or very close to it. Maybe they put more effort in the third. 
A lot of good points were made. I feel the action keeps viewers in the movie. There was some good action in the movie. However, regardless of reveiws, it made a lot of money, and everyone who saw it, is going to see the third, I think if they liked it or not.
I think I have come to realize that to most movie-goers would fine the plot very complex, I however followed it with some ease. Did it benefit me that I watched the PotC:CotB right before I saw PotCC? Maybe it did, I don't know.
A lot of good points were made. I feel the action keeps viewers in the movie. There was some good action in the movie. However, regardless of reveiws, it made a lot of money, and everyone who saw it, is going to see the third, I think if they liked it or not.
I think I have come to realize that to most movie-goers would fine the plot very complex, I however followed it with some ease. Did it benefit me that I watched the PotC:CotB right before I saw PotC
C? Maybe it did, I don't know.SPOILER WARNINGS
With Keira Knightley, Jack Davenport, and Orlando Bloom back and adding Tom Hollander as Cutler Beckett, the cast was full of actors who have proven that they can do British-period pieces very well. Plus, there was more Captain Jack Sparrow, so I found the acting to be very sound (even without more Geoffrey Rush). The problem most definitely arises in the story, which is convuluted and jam-packed with unnecessary story lines:
1) the cannibal scene was, in fact, unnecessary - unless "necessary" now means that a scene sets up the 5 second clip after the second, a clip that, like the canibal scene itself, failed to further the story (much unlike the original potc's postcredit clip)
2) three way swordfight - sparrow wants the key to not have to serve on the flying dutchman, and that makes sense to me. where i start to lose it is the point where i am forced to believe that will turner just must release a father that abandoned him (i'm sorry, i don't buy it). to further the insanity, norrington suddenly feels that his life will suddenly become back to normal with the key, yet if he knew beckett (even if he knew him only as well as the movie audience does), shouldn't he realize that thats pretty unlikely. I personally think that this whole fight was overhyped, and the matching scene of elizabeth, pintel, and rigetti having to fight off the flying dutchman's crew with only 2 swords to share was greatly underplayed and did not fully reach its potential
3) elizabeth, as a character - she seemed independent and strong for most of the movie, but the second that sparrow, turner, and norrington are all not paying attention to her, she becomes extremely passive, begging them to listen and even trying to pretend to faint (since when does a woman who dresses herself like a boy find the need to resort to proper ladylike tactics to get attention?)
4) kraken - I am not going to call kraken unecessary, because he definitely was necessary, especially for the main cliffhanger ending. My question is how much kraken is enough kraken? it seemed to me to be a bit overkill when it just kept sinking boats (how many, like 4 or 5 by movies end?), especially since it did all of them the same exact way, by more or less flailing its tentacles around until the boat was completely broken and sunk. Maybe it would have been better if the kraken could have used some different means to sink ships too.
I could continue, but I have a feeling that this is too long as it is. Overall, the movie sufferred from a lack of good writing, as even Sparrow's mini-rants weren't as amusing (because they were also harder to understand) than those he had in the original. I think it also sufferred from both sequels being shot at once, as actors seemed to often lack and/or not know their motivation in a scene, and that furthered the confusion that the audience experienced. Having seen the movie twice, I still have questions that this movie doesn't attempt to answer (absolutely no closure at the end of the movie), but at least I can say I understood what actually occurred, which seemed to be a problem for a lot of people.
With Keira Knightley, Jack Davenport, and Orlando Bloom back and adding Tom Hollander as Cutler Beckett, the cast was full of actors who have proven that they can do British-period pieces very well. Plus, there was more Captain Jack Sparrow, so I found the acting to be very sound (even without more Geoffrey Rush). The problem most definitely arises in the story, which is convuluted and jam-packed with unnecessary story lines:
1) the cannibal scene was, in fact, unnecessary - unless "necessary" now means that a scene sets up the 5 second clip after the second, a clip that, like the canibal scene itself, failed to further the story (much unlike the original potc's postcredit clip)
2) three way swordfight - sparrow wants the key to not have to serve on the flying dutchman, and that makes sense to me. where i start to lose it is the point where i am forced to believe that will turner just must release a father that abandoned him (i'm sorry, i don't buy it). to further the insanity, norrington suddenly feels that his life will suddenly become back to normal with the key, yet if he knew beckett (even if he knew him only as well as the movie audience does), shouldn't he realize that thats pretty unlikely. I personally think that this whole fight was overhyped, and the matching scene of elizabeth, pintel, and rigetti having to fight off the flying dutchman's crew with only 2 swords to share was greatly underplayed and did not fully reach its potential
3) elizabeth, as a character - she seemed independent and strong for most of the movie, but the second that sparrow, turner, and norrington are all not paying attention to her, she becomes extremely passive, begging them to listen and even trying to pretend to faint (since when does a woman who dresses herself like a boy find the need to resort to proper ladylike tactics to get attention?)
4) kraken - I am not going to call kraken unecessary, because he definitely was necessary, especially for the main cliffhanger ending. My question is how much kraken is enough kraken? it seemed to me to be a bit overkill when it just kept sinking boats (how many, like 4 or 5 by movies end?), especially since it did all of them the same exact way, by more or less flailing its tentacles around until the boat was completely broken and sunk. Maybe it would have been better if the kraken could have used some different means to sink ships too.
I could continue, but I have a feeling that this is too long as it is. Overall, the movie sufferred from a lack of good writing, as even Sparrow's mini-rants weren't as amusing (because they were also harder to understand) than those he had in the original. I think it also sufferred from both sequels being shot at once, as actors seemed to often lack and/or not know their motivation in a scene, and that furthered the confusion that the audience experienced. Having seen the movie twice, I still have questions that this movie doesn't attempt to answer (absolutely no closure at the end of the movie), but at least I can say I understood what actually occurred, which seemed to be a problem for a lot of people.
DisneyRoxMySox
Well-Known Member
nyy102 said:
It was actaully necessary. Jack needs to find land to escpae Davy Jones, when he becomes King it appears that he is safe. Will needs to find Jack for it to be a good movie? When Jack sends Will off it shows Jack's "pirate" side, that he wants nothing to do with him because he can't gain anything. Then, seeing that he needs his ship to not get eaten, he is friends with Will again. This battle between Jack's true feelings can be seen in the movie. Compass?
nyy102 said:
I thought they were rather great and funny action scenes. Will sees past the abandonment for a good reason. He realizes that his father tried to prevent him from becoming a pirate.
nyy102 said:
For laughs. At least I thought it was funny.
nyy102 said:
It was more like 2 or 3. Davy Jones and his beastie, as told by myth, is the devil of the sea. In this movie the battle between good and evil is portrayed. To see how much destruction the beastie can cause is showing how much evil is involved. The kraken use other means to sink ships? That's going against legend.
QUOTE=nyy102]I could continue, but I have a feeling that this is too long as it is. Overall, the movie sufferred from a lack of good writing, as even Sparrow's mini-rants weren't as amusing (because they were also harder to understand) than those he had in the original. I think it also sufferred from both sequels being shot at once, as actors seemed to often lack and/or not know their motivation in a scene, and that furthered the confusion that the audience experienced. Having seen the movie twice, I still have questions that this movie doesn't attempt to answer (absolutely no closure at the end of the movie), but at least I can say I understood what actually occurred, which seemed to be a problem for a lot of people.[/QUOTE]
Oh I stand corrected I have found that the movies were filmed back to back, so I think your motivation theory is out the window. I thought it was a great movie and I still feel that the plot wasn't that hard to follow. No clousre at the end of the movie? Unhappy with unanswered questions? Go see that third movie, that is what a second movie is supposed to do, draw back for a third film.
imagineer99
New Member
Actually, the third movie is still filming. Originally, part three was going to hit theatres this Christmas. But, a Hurricane pushed everything back and over budget. So, everything should wrap around September, and in May, we get the third and final installment.
My biggest issue with the second movie is strictly the story. I think Verbinski is a skilled director. I think that the actors are all top notch. And, the music, as always, is great. But, all these elements lack a certain spark when you consider how poorly designed the story was--a jumble of too many subplots, most of which were uninteresting.
I have no problems with a cliffhanger ending. However, I do have a problem with a flick that goes nowhere and takes forever to do it.
My biggest issue with the second movie is strictly the story. I think Verbinski is a skilled director. I think that the actors are all top notch. And, the music, as always, is great. But, all these elements lack a certain spark when you consider how poorly designed the story was--a jumble of too many subplots, most of which were uninteresting.
I have no problems with a cliffhanger ending. However, I do have a problem with a flick that goes nowhere and takes forever to do it.
DisneyRoxMySox
Well-Known Member
imagineer99 said:
That is probably the best point you have. I can't really argue against it. It's true, but I quote somone from this very site.
"If a movie isn't longer than two hours, I feel I have been ripped off."
By the way, I really have enjoyed reading your thoughts and all of the other posts in this thread. Great debate and an even better movie. Here's to a great trilogy on so many levels! Cheers!:wave:
imagineer99
New Member
DisneyRoxMySox said:By the way, I really have enjoyed reading your thoughts and all of the other posts in this thread. Great debate and an even better movie. Here's to a great trilogy on so many levels! Cheers!:wave:
Likewise
imagineer boy
Well-Known Member
Either way, I guess its safe to say that more people enjoyed the film than hated it judging by the box office numbers and general reactions on the internet. Even if I hadn't liked it, I'd still like it better than Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded was unforgivably bad with its complete lack of plot and pointless dance sequence. Not to mention the main differences between the films is the considerably bad special effects in Reloaded compared to the fantastic visuals in DMC.
darthjohnny
Active Member
I thought the movie was AWESOME! The ending was great. It was really creative and well thought out ending and leaves you wanting more for the next pirates