[Movie] Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Also, this movie was a disjointed piece of crap. Weird David Lynchian beginning followed by an old west style showdown on a beach with a bad ending does not a movie make. A few funny moments, some nice action bits, but overall? AWFUL.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

I could not stand the wedding scene, though. It wasn't funny. Maybe it's my sense of humor.

I really enjoyed the first and second PotC, but this third one was a complete waste of my time (and money). We all walked out of the threatre, incredibly disappointed.

You can feel that "rushed" and "not complete" feeling the movie seemed to have. So much potential wasted.

Also, I thought there was going to be a lot more emphasis on the whole Pirate Lords coming to together against the trading company, but oops ha ha shitty sub-plot that got washed ashore when the Turners started fucking everything up - AS USUAL.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

And see, I can't buy Kiera Knightley as anything serious. The woman doesn't have acting chops. At all. Even a little. Was she better than she was in the prior two? Sure. Was she good? No. Cate Blanchett gives that speech and I'd be impressed. Coming from pouty-lips McCan'tAct, I don't care.

Tia Dalma sucked because she was thrown away. Her relationship with Davy Jones was the only one they really took the time to do something with in the third flick, and then they just dropped it and forgot about it. Absolute bullshit.

Also, yes, the action sequences were very well choreographed. Exceptionally Errol Flynnesque in their delivery, timed with some great maritime action. Who couldn't love that British Galleon getting fingercuffed by the Pearl and the Dutchman? But that doesn't excuse the movie. Also, Keith Richards wasn't underused. He was just perfect. Any more and we'd see how truly not an actor he is.

Also, Rocktheparty is so sadly wrong it isn't even funny. It wasn't the action bits that ruined the movie, it WAS the emotional character bits underneath. They didn't develop them for shit, and not to make room for action, it was to make room for Johnny Depp fangirls/boys wet dreams of giving him more fucking screen time. Orlando Bloom is a shoddy actor, and I wasn't impressed with his Princess Bride's Man In Black impression at the end. Kiera is a fucking awful actress, no matter how hot you think she is, she's terrible. Geoffrey Rush once again kicks ass in his role, as he often does, and Johnny Depp proves yet again what a second rate Gene Wilder he really is. Movie sucked. Case fucking closed.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

It wasn't the action bits that ruined the movie, it WAS the emotional character bits underneath.

I thought that was what I was saying, but perhaps that wasn't how it came across.

Although the PotC characters have always been boring (besides Jack Sparrow), their interactions with each other were entertaining. Not in the third movie, though, and that is why I was disappointed. And I do blame the overbearing story that demanded the special effects, although I wasn't specifically targeting the action sequences.

The emotional bits could have been better if they did not try to disguse its mediocrity with really cool action sequences and plot points that wasted time.

Why does Jack Sparrow want eternal life, even though he has made no mention of it in the other two movies? So that he can have a dazzling fight with Davy Jones! Why have Calypso in the movie at all, and a half-baked storyline for her? To have an excuse for a giant storm in the final battle! Why go to Davy Jone's locker at all? To have a cool special effect sequence while traveling there, of course!

As a result, Jack Sparrow was barely in the movie.

Yeah, he was in almost every scene after being rescued, but he was essentially pushed to the background and had very little to say or do until the the final parts of the movie. Every plot device or twist made in the movie meant little time for Jack Sparrow. But it didn't matter, because Jack Sparrow was not fun to watch in the third movie anyway.

Johnny Depp probably had more flexibility to do what he wanted with Jack Sparrow, thus the reason why the character seemed to be crap in this movie. But the fact of the matter is that most people went to these movies expecting to see him, and to clutter the story as they did made the impact of knowing Depp screwed up more disappointing.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by rockthepartay

Why does Jack Sparrow want eternal life, even though he has made no mention of it in the other two movies?

No, there was hint of him wanting it in the first film, when he wistfully referred to himself as "the immortal Captain Jack Sparrow" at one point.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Didn't Barbossa say that?

Even if Jack did say that, his desire to become captain of the Flying Dutchman was not his main goal in either of the two movies and was really forced upon us.

EDIT: Are you referring to a deleted scene?

In that case, I'm not too sure I can count that as canon. I don't remember much about them, so I don't know if they conflict with anything established in the finished movie.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by rockthepartay

Even if Jack did say that, his desire to become captain of the Flying Dutchman was not his main goal in either of the two movies and was really forced upon us.

I didn't see it like that. After all, it wasn't until at the end of the second movie did Jack experience a fate worse than death. This is what made him yearn for immortality. It makes sense from his character's perspective to seek immortality out only after returning to life by becoming the Captain of the Flying Dutchman. I thought they portrayed this well in the third movie. It was also a nice arc for his character when he gave up his chances of being immortal for Will.


Yeah, I liked the movie. I do have a few critiques: a bit too long, some characters deserved more screen time/development (Davy Jones - I found him more interesting than most of the other characters), and it was difficult comprehending a few things at first. But overall, I was entertained. None of the sequels could truly capture the original appeal of the first, but I don't think the filmmakers were trying to make the sequels better than the first - they were just trying to give Dead Man's Chest and At World's End legs of their own to stand out, and be different in their own unique ways. I think they succeeded.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by rockthepartay

EDIT: Are you referring to a deleted scene?

Could be. It's been a while since I saw it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.