Michael Sat Jul 15 00:25:27 2006
Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
OK, I'll level with you. PotC I is basically the cornerstone of my family's religion. My wife in particular regards it as something between the Bible and heroin, and my daughter and I like it a whole lot. My son finds it too creepy.
But after the first thirty or so viewings, I found myself sleeping through it. I mean, it's a sweet sleep, there's nothing like sleeping to the ringing sounds of swordfights, but I've memorized every frame, OK? It's not like I'll miss anything.
So I regard PotC II as frames of the movie I haven't memorized yet. When the flick hits DVD, we will of course buy it and then proceed to burn out another DVD player or two watching it. (This is not hyperbole; we're on our third DVD player since buying PotC I. They're fun to take apart once dead, though.)
I most heartily recommend it. I mean really, it's a very, very good movie. But it's not the simple goodness of the first one. The new adversaries are less believable than cursed skeleton pirates, for instance. It's harder for me to suspend my disbelief for Davy Jones than for Captain Barbosa.
But, you know, that's the only thing wrong with it. That and the cliffhanger ending, but hey, I can wait a year for the conclusion. I loved it.
|
mouse Mon Jul 17 18:12:41 2006
Re: Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
you will probably deny all knowledge of me once i admit this - but i own potc-1 and have not yet watched it. (i am also _way_ behind on my netflix watching).
i really need to figure out how to hook the dvd player up to the tv....
|
Emsworth Mon Jul 17 22:15:49 2006
Re: Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
> you will probably deny all knowledge of me once i admit this - but i own
> potc-1 and have not yet watched it. (i am also _way_ behind on my netflix
> watching).
I don't own it, but enjoyed it well enough at second run theater, when renting, and on TV. And the Disneyland refurb, though the idea annoyed me as a traditionalist, isn't bad, even if the Jack Sparrow figure seems a little too modern and a little too masacaraed to fit in with the 60s designed figures at times.
|
gopher Wed Jul 19 00:45:36 2006
Re: Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
> But, you know, that's the only thing wrong with it. That and the
> cliffhanger ending, but hey, I can wait a year for the conclusion. I loved
> it.
I thought it would have been better if about 40 minutes shorter. There's no excuse to have something that butt-numbingly long and a lame setup of an ending. And for some reason Orland Bloom and Keira Knightley's acting seemed really dull and grating in this one, but that may just be me. I also seem to be the only one that thought the Kracken scenes appeared stylisticlly (and not in a good way) similar to 50's monster movies. Eh. I didn't like it, but maybe number three will redeem it a little.
|
Michael Wed Jul 19 21:53:39 2006
Re: Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
> I thought it would have been better if about 40 minutes shorter.
I don't know about 40 minutes, but most of the cannibal scenes could easily have been removed. That whole sequence was pretty stupid and pointless. And not very fun, a lot of it.
The swinging-in-cages part interspersed, though, that was pretty fun (and probably targeted at the videogame, sigh).
> And for some reason Orland Bloom and Keira Knightley's acting
> seemed really dull and grating in this one, but that may just be me.
I rather liked both. Johnny Depp was the one sleepwalking through the role. Sleepwalking with style, granted, but eh. I *still* loved it.
> I
> also seem to be the only one that thought the Kracken scenes appeared
> stylisticlly (and not in a good way) similar to 50's monster movies.
I think they were borrowing a lot from older movies, yeah. Although I don't watch many, so I couldn't swear to it. But Will did that down-the-sail-with-the-knife move, and that was Laurence of Olivier (sp) originally, see?
|
Emsworth Thu Jul 20 16:22:10 2006
Re: Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
> But Will did that
> down-the-sail-with-the-knife move, and that was Laurence of Olivier (sp)
> originally, see?
When did Sir Larry do that? I always associated it more closely with Errol Flynn, in "Sea Wolf" and the like.
|
Michael Thu Jul 20 19:20:15 2006
Re: Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
> When did Sir Larry do that? I always associated it more closely with Errol
> Flynn, in "Sea Wolf" and the like.
Ah, sir, you have the advantage of me. For Sir L, substitute "some guy in a classic movie" and you will much more closely approximate the state of my actual knowledge of the subject. (But at least I noticed the allusion...)
|
Emsworth Thu Jul 20 22:38:51 2006
Re: Pirates of the Caribbean II: 0.95 times PotC I
> Ah, sir, you have the advantage of me. For Sir L, substitute "some
> guy in a classic movie" and you will much more closely approximate
> the state of my actual knowledge of the subject. (But at least I noticed
> the allusion...)
Aha. It surprised me because Larry really didn't appear in many swashbucklers in his prime, preferring to handle Shakespeare and the occasional romance. Although even Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster tried their hands at it, briefly.
|
|
