mkrishnan said:I had fun. Don't invest too much. Just enjoy the movie. And Johnny Deppness.
Same here. As a standalone movie it was pretty good but it probably wasn't the sequel I'd hoped for. Still fun though.
Oh, it ended quite abruptly too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
- Thread starter saunders45
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Same here. As a standalone movie it was pretty good but it probably wasn't the sequel I'd hoped for. Still fun though.
Oh, it ended quite abruptly too.
True.
Still, I would have liked it to be less overtly obvious that the third one must be seen to understand what's going on. It has that sticky marketing stench to it.
Still, I would have liked it to be less overtly obvious that the third one must be seen to understand what's going on. It has that sticky marketing stench to it.
atszyman said:
I gotta agree with you there. I really felt like it was a slow movie, and with it ending the way it did, I also felt disappointed. I had really high expectations for this movie, and expected it to be a self-contained movie and sequel. I loved Lord of the Rings and didn't mind the cliffhanger endings because they were expected. But I still have high hopes that the 3rd one will wrap up the story (in a much better fashion than the Matrix) and the "Pirates" series will be saved.
mad jew said:
Wait, I didn't think this was supposed to be a standalone movie, especially with the way it ended abruptly.
i just got back from seeing it. i thought it was alright. i felt it was a bit too long however, as if though it should have ended at an earlier scene. all in all though the third installment of the series should be an interesting watch. we shall wait and see.
jdechko said:
It's not supposed to be a standalone movie per se, but it would have been nice if it wasn't so blatant in requiring us to see the third movie to appreciate this second one. Still, it was a fun three hours (or whatever it was).
I saw the movies last night and i was disapointed, if the first movies was not good as it was i do not think i would be as diapointed as i am now. The movie started well but i think here was no story as in the first one. The story sucked, no major events, the black druid/shaman girl sucked (i hated her) and i am was disapointed with the ending. Its not worth the ticket but its a nice movie to rent.
Sharewaredemon said:Seeing as the last few posts have been commenting that they didn't think the film was the greatest.
View this review of the film.
Enjoy.
Thanks! The ninja has it right. It was a horribly long and poorly edited and a poorly written movie. Quick - how many lines did you come out of this movie quoting to your friends? The first had many ("more of a guideline..." etc.) but this only had you rubbing your rear end to get some circulation going from two-and-a-half hours of pain.
Hm, echoing many of the previous posters, liked the first movie much more than this one.
I felt like the plot and the characters didn't really interest me that much and to steal what my boyfriend's been saying, it felt much more like a weak bridge necessary as a lead-in for the third movie.
I'm guessing/ hoping the third one will be better than the second.
I felt like the plot and the characters didn't really interest me that much and to steal what my boyfriend's been saying, it felt much more like a weak bridge necessary as a lead-in for the third movie.
I'm guessing/ hoping the third one will be better than the second.
Believe it or not, it was only 10 min longer than the first film.iGary said:
I liked the film, but not as much as the first. I thought the Orlando Bloom/Johnny Depp screentime ratio was totally off, and I felt that the movie took way too long to set up the story. By the time they had gotten Depp off of the island with the cannibals, my large coke was already starting to make its presence felt again (if you know what I mean). I wasn't terribly disappointed in the ending, because I knew that it was going to be like the Matrix sequels in that it was really one story told over three films. My guess is that the filmmakers ended up with one 3.5 hour movie and had to pad things out to make it two films. The entire cannibal subplot seemed to come out of nowhere and exist only to extend the film. Ironicially enough, it had some of the best moments as well.
I'm so disappointed. The first half was so slow. Boring. Just blah. The thing that made this movie not great was it depended too heavily on jokes from the first instead of making new jokes. There were no classic lines in this movie, and they made Keira seem really evil and malicious there at the end. I still think the 3rd can be good, but only if it goes back to what made the original great- original punchlines. I also hated how commodore Norrington became a bad guy because in the first I loved him- he seemed like he was actually a good person.
The end sucked. Unlike Lord of the Rings where the break felt natural, this seemed a cheap way to make it a cliffhanger. They should've taken away from the pointless scenes and developed more of a natural cliffhanger. And the scene with Keira on the beach screaming at the men is idiotic. She seems like some prissy trophy wife. I started to enjoy the 2nd half, but nothing compared to the original.
The end sucked. Unlike Lord of the Rings where the break felt natural, this seemed a cheap way to make it a cliffhanger. They should've taken away from the pointless scenes and developed more of a natural cliffhanger. And the scene with Keira on the beach screaming at the men is idiotic. She seems like some prissy trophy wife. I started to enjoy the 2nd half, but nothing compared to the original.
The Matrix, A New Hope, and The Curse of the Black Pearl were all true masterpieces that could have stood on their own, and each had a "bridge" sequel that clearly could not stand on its own. The Matrix Reloaded was bad enough that it made me lose respect for the original. The Empire Strikes Back was good enough that it makes the first oen seem even better.
This falls squarely between The Matrix Reloaded and The Empire Strikes Back. I don't think this movie sold out the greatness of the first one, but it wasn't really a worthy successor either. There was too much supernatural stuff and not enough pirate stuff for my tastes. And Depp's one-liners weren't nearly as good ("welcome to the Carribean, luv" is one of my all time favorite movie lines). That said, it certainly kept me interested for 2.5+ hours, and there was some really great humor.
I'll definitely see the 3rd one, but I hope it can go the way of Return of the Jedi and finishes with a movie as good as the first one rather than the downhill spiral in to absurdity that the Matrix franchise chose.
This falls squarely between The Matrix Reloaded and The Empire Strikes Back. I don't think this movie sold out the greatness of the first one, but it wasn't really a worthy successor either. There was too much supernatural stuff and not enough pirate stuff for my tastes. And Depp's one-liners weren't nearly as good ("welcome to the Carribean, luv" is one of my all time favorite movie lines). That said, it certainly kept me interested for 2.5+ hours, and there was some really great humor.
I'll definitely see the 3rd one, but I hope it can go the way of Return of the Jedi and finishes with a movie as good as the first one rather than the downhill spiral in to absurdity that the Matrix franchise chose.
QCassidy352 said:
I think part of the problem is the fact that the third movie is a "given." When Lucas originally did Star Wars the profits from each movie went into creating the sequel. Jedi would not have been made had Empire bombed. Which is part of why it succeeds better than Matrix and Dead Man's Chest.
Empire, albeit a massively depressing ending, wasn't the "walk you into the next plot" ending that seems to be taking hold with the guaranteed sequels like the Matrix and this one, which seems more like a TV season finale than a movie ending.