indy4 152 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 First of all, this is NOT discussion about the scores. I think we have enough of those. This is purely about the films.Just curious, but what does everybody think about them? I've always loved the first one, I thought it was a very fun and entertaining film. Johnny Depp is absolutely fantastic, he really brings the character to life in a way no pirate on film has ever. I believe Jack Sparrow will become one of the most iconic names in film, mainly due to Depp's wonderful portrayal of him. The plot is great, the action is exciting, the humor is hilarious, the SFX are good, it's just an overall great film.The second one was much different--the plot became more complicated, the characters became less reliable, and a lot of things changed. The plot was a bit shaky for me, but it was still a great film. Depp was still wonderful. Davy Jones looked incredibly realistic. And I must say that the scene with the spinning wheel (starting when Sparrow, Turner, and Norrington draw their swords, ending when Norrington steals the heart) was one of the greatest action sequences since Indiana Jones (the only ones I can currently think of that are almost as good/as good would be the trailer scene in The Lost World and the first T-rex scene in Jurassic Park, but I know there may be a few others). Not as good as the first, but still a very very entertaining film, and I enjoy it immensly.The plot was way to complicated in the third (though I understood it much better on the second viewing). Still, it was very entertaining. There was a ton of cheesiness (getting married in the middle of a fight), but I still loved it. Sometimes corniness is a good thing. The action scenes were incredibly entertaining (while none of them surpasses the spinning wheel scene). Depp, once more, was brilliant. The SFX were great. While it seemed a bit too lenghty, it still was overall a great film.I think this is a great trilogy of films, and it fully deserves all the praise and popularity it recieved. Maybe not as the most deep and thought provoking of films, but as a great action trilogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 317 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 To make a short and simple post. I've enjoy all three films. I do wonder though if they will make a fourth one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 The films are pretty good. A bit too much going on at times and too many characters but they are entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taikomochi 783 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 First : GoodSecond : GreatThird : Let down, but tolerable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,095 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 All 3 are great films, just with flaws in different departments for each one. I liked the corniness, and I think it was purposefully done that way. Dead Man's Chest is my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckM 1 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 To make a short and simple post. I've enjoy all three films. I do wonder though if they will make a fourth one.My opinion is that they should make a prequel based on Jack Sparrow and the mutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,064 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 1. Good2. Meh3. Good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 First : GoodSecond : GreatThird : Let down, but tolerableMy thoughts exactly. The third one didn't even bother to have an actual plot, it was just a concatenation of loose anecdotes and arbitrary characters spurting pirate-y dialogue. But it becomes a pretty fun ride overall once you accept this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 First : GoodSecond : GreatThird : Let down, but tolerableMy thoughts exactly.Me too. Overall a very enjoyable series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 2,082 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I second that.They tried to get too clever with the plot towards the end, but on a second viewing the third film was very enjoyable. Depp 200% sinks into his role in the whole series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 9 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 The first one is not a film, but is made entirely by Messers Rush and Depp. The second one is a far better film, but is just not entertaining enough.The third one has great ambitions, often very misguided ones, and not communicated well...but I think that, overall, it is the most entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I'll say again too that I'm all for a fourth film as long as it cuts away the fluff and focus totally on Depp and Rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 49 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 The Pirates films are leagues above Michael Bay trash and that sort of thing, but they have many problems, nearly all of which can be summed up with two words: Jerry Bruckheimer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 85 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I regret that I saw them all three. The most overrated children's movies ever made. The music was actually the best part of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 49 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 ??!!???!?!?!?!?!!?!??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 73 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I like them all, particularly Dead Man's Chest. The first was quite entertaining as well, but At World's End was way too convoluted, and probably a bit too ambitious for its' own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,095 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 The most overrated children's movies ever made.I don't think they are children's movies. Just because it's Disney doesn't mean it's for kids.The music was actually the best part of it all.I agree with you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 85 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 ??!!???!?!?!?!?!!?!???Yes really. I love other 'children's movies' like Jurassic Park, Timeline, Independence Day and all of the Indiana Jones movies, and even the Mummy movies. But this commercial crap is far too over-the-top fake full of over-acting, with stupidly complex storylines trying to compensate for the cheap attraction park spin-off concept. It was not fun watching it was totally annoying and a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,095 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 What's your definition of a children's movie?! I think the term you are looking for is action or adventure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 ...but At World's End was way too convoluted, and probably a bit too ambitious for its' own good.One of the special features on Dead Man's Chest shows pretty clearly that they were just writing scenes (well, set pieces is more accurate) for the third movie without any idea of an overall plot structure. It showed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,284 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 entertaining movies.Excellent SFXThe score diminishes the overall experience though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,248 Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 First one was excellent, a real pleasant surprise.The second one was a MAJOR disappointment.As my expectations were so low, the third one wasn't as bad as it could've been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 73 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 ...but At World's End was way too convoluted, and probably a bit too ambitious for its' own good.One of the special features on Dead Man's Chest shows pretty clearly that they were just writing scenes (well, set pieces is more accurate) for the third movie without any idea of an overall plot structure. It showed.Was it a case of the studio rushing to get it made? It's pretty evident that they weren't really prepared. I still don't know what was going on in that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 49 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 It was the case of the studio not giving a god damn about quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 85 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 What's your definition of a children's movie?! I think the term you are looking for is action or adventure.It was a term Henry Buck threw at me upon my confession I liked movies like JP and ID4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 49 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I must have meant "sucky movie"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 ...but At World's End was way too convoluted, and probably a bit too ambitious for its' own good.One of the special features on Dead Man's Chest shows pretty clearly that they were just writing scenes (well, set pieces is more accurate) for the third movie without any idea of an overall plot structure. It showed.Was it a case of the studio rushing to get it made? It's pretty evident that they weren't really prepared. I still don't know what was going on in that movie.I don't know how much the studio pushed it, I think for the most part it's just the usual problems with trying to make two movies from scratch at once. It doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 317 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 ??!!???!?!?!?!?!!?!???Yes really. I love other 'children's movies' like Jurassic Park, Timeline, Independence Day and all of the Indiana Jones movies, and even the Mummy movies. But this commercial crap is far too over-the-top fake full of over-acting, with stupidly complex storylines trying to compensate for the cheap attraction park spin-off concept. It was not fun watching it was totally annoying and a waste of time.Those aren't "children's movies" they're adventure or action films as Koray stated. "Children's films" are the animated shows that Disney and Pixar put out...not the live action stuff like Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Pirates Of The Caribbean, etc....You need to get your terms right...BTW if you think the films are a waste of time you're an idiot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 85 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I must have meant "sucky movie"!You think you come away with that? ??!!???!?!?!?!?!!?!???Yes really. I love other 'children's movies' like Jurassic Park, Timeline, Independence Day and all of the Indiana Jones movies, and even the Mummy movies. But this commercial crap is far too over-the-top fake full of over-acting, with stupidly complex storylines trying to compensate for the cheap attraction park spin-off concept. It was not fun watching it was totally annoying and a waste of time.Those aren't "children's movies" they're adventure or action films as Koray stated. "Children's films" are the animated shows that Disney and Pixar put out...not the live action stuff like Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Pirates Of The Caribbean, etc....You need to get your terms right...See above explanation.BTW if you think the films are a waste of time you're an idiot...So be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 152 Posted April 7, 2008 Author Share Posted April 7, 2008 The most overrated children's movies ever made.I don't think they are children's movies. Just because it's Disney doesn't mean it's for kids.I think PotC and National Treasure proove your point. I was a bit shocked in AWE, some of the sexual jokes were unusual for Disney.I must have meant "sucky movie"!Independence Day, that is a sucky movie. But JP??? That is 127 minutes of brilliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 49 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 More like 127 minutes of suckulence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 152 Posted April 7, 2008 Author Share Posted April 7, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 49 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Oh, I'm just kidding. It's not terrible. Nice, sort of fun suspense movie with some almost interesting philosophy. The score hurts it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 152 Posted April 7, 2008 Author Share Posted April 7, 2008 Sarcasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 49 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 73 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 If memory serves me right Curse of the Black Pearl was the first PG-13 Disney movie. I wouldn't exactly call them kids' material, unless you consider everything by Disney to be kiddie-fare (which isn't unreasonable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,284 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 No.you're an idiot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I have a feeling these movies may be nearly forgotten in a few years' time.They seem more of a fad than movies that will leave a lasting impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 9 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 They're not amazing pieces of film....but I can see myself returning to the movies (mainly the third one) repeatedly. The kind of movie you put on at 1 AM with a bunch of friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 but I can see myself returning to the movies (mainly the third one) repeatedly.To try and find some logic in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 9 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I've given up on that. It's presentation of it's underlying theme doesn't make much sense, and, even if it did, it is woefully misguided. But I think it is still a relatively consistantly entertaining film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Hoyt 13 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I didn't see any of these films in the theater and frankly I didn't understand the hype for the first movie until I final saw it on dvd. The first film is a fun movie and I believe that its the best way to describe it. The second one did an admirable job of expanded the world but it was really just one big build up to the third movie. Instead of being The Empire Strikes Back it was The Matrix Reloaded. I've only seen the third one once, (apparently its better after multiple viewings?), but I was disappointed with it. It was too long for and kinda of confusing. Overall I do enjoy the series and would like to see another one, with just Depp and Rush perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Barnsbury 8 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I agree with Magical_Me...the first was fun, but the second two were way over the top and convoluted. The second most overrated trilogy of the 21st century! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,759 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Curse of the Black Pearl was terrific fun.Dead Men's Chest was abysmalAt Worlds End was fun but over the top in parts where it shouldn't have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrScratch 292 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 The first one is very entertaining, I liked it even better the second time I saw it. The sequels are an incoherent mess, I was thoroughly bored with each one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I have a feeling these movies may be nearly forgotten in a few years' time.They seem more of a fad than movies that will leave a lasting impression.Thanks for describing the Potter movies so perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,064 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Books too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,095 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I think I'm the only one that didn't read the Potter books until the movies came out. I read Sorcerer's Stone when Chamber Of Secrets was out, and I only got up to Prisoner Of Azkaban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Books too.Nah. The books will endure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy4 152 Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 Books too.The books will become be as well known as LotR books are today. They will become true classics (as they deserve to be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now