Upcoming
December 31
January 2
Cargo 200
January 7
Silent Light
January 9
How About You
Yonkers Joe
January 16
Cherry Blossoms
January 21
Of Time and the City
The Big Empty
The Big Empty
For a brief period in the early '80s I was seriously flirting with an idea of launching a glossy culture magazine called Nothing. Of course, a series of snide, lighthearted riffs on what was then an emerging new current -- a notion that glib irony and an increasing absence of sincerity or "meaning" in the arts had virused into a kind of existential fast-food that everyone was consuming -- was doomed to fail. It was too uptown, too dry.
But if Nothing had succeeded and was still publishing today (and I were still the editor), Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest -- a profile of director Gore Verbinksi, probably -- would be on the cover of the current issue.
Bill Nighy as Davy Jones -- the greatest movie villain to come along in years, and a landmark CG accompishment
Every scene, every shot, every frame of this 149-minute action blast and production-design extravaganza is a technical knockout. If your idea of great entertainment is measured primarily in terms of EED -- extraordinary eyeball diversion -- Pirates 2 is going to wow you. It's going to fill you with good-time- movie delight.
I was over the moon about one particular element -- Bill Nighy's Davy Jones character, not only a villain extraordinaire but a masterful CG creation. Nothing I say in the rest of this review will slight this accomplishment in any way, shape or form.
Warning: include(/home/hollyw9/public_html/wired) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in E:\web\public_html\gruver1\2006\06\the_big_empty.php on line 38
Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/hollyw9/public_html/wired' for inclusion (include_path='.;C:\php5\pear') in E:\web\public_html\gruver1\2006\06\the_big_empty.php on line 38
But you need the right kind of hollowed-out attitude about movies to have a truly good time with Pirates 2. If you're don't, you may have some problems.
There is nothing, nothing, nothing going on inside this film. I can hear the Sons of Matthew McConaughey going "awww, screw him" right now. Only guys who are out of the post-Millenial loop would complain about a good-time jokey-ass pirate movie, they're probably thinking. Lighten up and grow a sense of humor, dude. Life sucks if you can't kick back and have fun.
But I get the humor. Pirates is very funny at times. It's inventive and spunky every step of the way, and there's the comfort of Johnny Depp's jaded-smartass performance as Cpt. Jack Sparrow, and the pleasure of seeing Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley hold their own and then some, and studying all those wonderfully choregraphed action sequences.
Johnny Depp as Cpt. Jack Sparrow
This is a superbly calibrated and perfectly-timed movie, and Darius Wolski's photo- graphy is drop-dead luscious. There's a shot of rain falling on a set of teacups in the very beginning that really made me smile.
But it's almost creepy how everything that's good about this film is entirely about the eyes. Nothing kicks in within. Not ever, not once.
Jerry Bruckheimer used to make sirloin-steak guy movies. This is a Vegas movie for the whole overweight popcorn-munching family, and it feels like a real shame. I never realized in the mid-to-late '90s that The Rock, Con Air and Gone in 60 Seconds were manifestations of Bruckheimer's golden era, but they sure seem that way now compared to Pirates.
I need to reiterate how absolutely delighted and mesmerized I was by Nighy's Davy Jones, the slimiest, yuckiest squid-faced villain to ever rule over a motion picturre. The whole world is going to feel this way -- this is a world-class baddie for the ages -- although it's only Nighy's voice and body (i.e., not his head) at work here. His petroleum jelly maggot-squid head and light-blue eyes are all CGI.
Nighy is the captain of the Flying Dutchman, a three-masted ship that dives like a submarine and mostly prowls around underwater, which accounts for the barnacles and slime covering everything and everyone on board. (So why is it called the Flying Dutchman?) Nighy deliver his lines with perfectly honed humor and wit. He should be nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar...really.
The basic plot is twofold. Davy Jones believes that Sparrow owes him his soul, and he's slimy and ferocious enough to insist upon this so Sparrow has to figure an escape. (Finding a key and a small wooden chest containing an organically throbbing object figure into this.) And the romantically entwined Will Turner (Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Knightley) have to deliver Sparrow's compass to a frigid, bewigged British magistrate who will hang them if they don't.
And for whatever reason, Verbinksi has decided to take two and half hours to tell one half of the story. (Pirates of the Caribbean 3 will be out in May '07, and if it's as long as this installment that two films will one day be a five-hour DVD.) The reason it's so long is that Verbinksi is a Big Cheese these days and, like Peter Jackson, can do what he wants to do. And what he wants for this film is to digress and joke around and sometime slow things down for exposition's sake.
The giant-squiddy Cracken monster, one of the joke-around elements, is just okay. Very fine CG, I mean...big tentacles!...but again, it's strictly an EED thing. If that's all you want from a film, fine.
Pirates 2 didn't have to be this long, of course. Attitude romps should never run more than two hours. Verbinski and Bruckheimer know this -- it's a law -- and they went ahead anyway.
I became very depressed last night when I looked at my watch, hoping to see I had about 30 or 40 minutes to go, and I realized there was a whole hour more. An hour! I had to go out to the lobby and walk around a couple of minutes to prepare for the coming ordeal.
The script should have been tighter, there didn't have to be so many tangents and curlicues, and I swear to God I couldn't understand any more than five or ten words spoken by a voodoo priestess character with black lips and inky-purple teeth (played by Naomie Harris). But I liked Stellan Skarsgaard as Bloom's barnacled ghost-dad. He's the only one trying to do anything semi-soulful in the whole film.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is the best-made serving of big-studio eye candy in a long time. The craft that went into it is truly top of the line. It looks great and buckles swash like a champ. But if you see this thing and use the word "joy" to describe the way it made you feel deep down, there is really and truly something wrong with you.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 29, 2006 at 10:26 AM
comment #1
Dixon Steele says ...
Jesus, Jeff, it's a POPCORN movie, nothing more or less.
Who the hell goes to a PIRATES movie seeking spiritual enlightenment (except you, of course)?
You really are becoming a tiresome broken record. Sure, it's your blog but.....as JoAnne Worley used to say on Laugh-In....BORING!
Posted by Dixon Steele at June 29, 2006 2:57 PM
comment #2
Conrad says ...
I know this is going to sound like a jab at Jeffrey, but I don't intend it to be insulting, I just want to know from someone who's read this entire piece if there are spoilers that those who haven't seen the movie should stay clear of.
I've read in other reviews that the movie has some relevant twists and turns in the last third (including a cliffhanger finale), so I really don't want to know anything about them. But I dig Jeffrey's writing, so I do want to read the artice. See? I'm just being careful, that's all...
Posted by Conrad at June 29, 2006 2:58 PM
comment #3
Jeffrey Wells says ...
Hey, Dixon? You're boring, dude. You, not me. I worked on that piece for a long time to make sure I said it all the right way, and if you don't get what I'm saying about EED aesthetic and how the lack of ANY undercurrent whatsoever amounts to an absence of something crucial -- not important but CRUCIAL -- in the makeup of any good-time film, then you've really got an asethetic deficiency that you need to think about.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells at June 29, 2006 3:08 PM
comment #4
Jeffrey Wells says ...
Wells to Conrad: I have a lot less in my piece, plot-detail-wise, than David Poland did in his.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells at June 29, 2006 3:11 PM
comment #5
Astral Weeks says ...
Actually I'm surprised that Jeff went so easy on this flick. Reminds of King Kong, he hyped it up as a film that represented everything that he hated about contemporary vacuous Hollywood but when he actually saw it he concluded that it wasn’t too bad for what it was.
Anyway, I agree wih Jeffery's objection to the runing time. Why are Hollywood flicks so bloated these days? Would it have killed Bruckheimer to slash this flick down to 100 minutes? Brevity is the soul of wit and all that jazz.
Posted by Astral Weeks at June 29, 2006 3:21 PM
comment #6
gh says ...
Nothing magazine actually exists -- only it's called VICE and it's brilliant.
VICE had an issue recently called the "The Verdad (truth) issue" which was wall to wall lies presented in a dead pan, straight faced way.
Also a while back they had the "Greatest Issue Ever" which turned out to be a cover to cover parody of mags like Spin and Nylon again totally straight faced. I was halfway through before I caught on to the gag.
Posted by gh at June 29, 2006 3:22 PM
comment #7
oddDuck says ...
I dug the review, and am certainly more likely to see the flick based on it. Wells is a smart dude, and although he's a smartass with occasionally peculiar opinions, he's intellectually honest (always ready to try to back up his shit, and occasionally able to step back down when he acknowledges defeat), and always lays all his cards on the table. The worst crack you can lay on him is that he's a bit of a smug elitist, which is certainly a character flaw worth working on, but I'll take smugness over boring anyday.
Posted by oddDuck at June 29, 2006 3:25 PM
comment #8
gh says ...
"The script should have been tighter, there didn't have to be so many tangents and curlicues".
That pretty much sums up my main problem with Pirates 1. This material is too slight to sustain such epic runtimes. Enough with the boats going back and forth. Keep it short and sweet.
Posted by gh at June 29, 2006 3:34 PM
comment #9
Nicol D says ...
Nothing. I agree entirely with the notion that what we still have is a glib superficial arts culture.
But picking on Pirates is not the way to go. Pirates is supposed to be a big brash family entertainment...and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nothing is the late night culture of Letterman and Stewart who make us reduce complex ideas into glib one liners.
Nothing is music reviewers thinking Eminem has something to say and the Dixie Chix are courageous.
Nothing is Evangelical Super Churches that house 3 thousand a week and a culture that thinks New Age Spiritualism is deep.
Nothing is thinking all cultural words and definitions are transient and 3000 year traditions can change because hey...we've evolved.
Nothing is going to university and being told Shakespeare is dated and offensive but Mapplethorpe is art and sophisticated.
Nothing is a generation embracing the likes of Hunter S Thompson and Tim Leary in the name of evolution.
Nothing is exactly what the baby boomer generation of the sixties has left us.
As for as 'nothing' movies go, I'll take Pirates over baby boy Dicaprio playing the Titan of Nothings Tim Leary any day.
Anyway...that's my rant.
I actually agree in principal, just not in specifics.
Posted by Nicol D at June 29, 2006 3:40 PM
comment #10
andrew says ...
This is why I've stuck with your column since the "Mr. Showbiz" days - you carefully consider what worked and didn't work for you in a film. Most people view movies in a "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" mindset . . . rather than an experience that may mean different things to different people.
Of course, your posts leading up to these sort of movies . . . you know, the constant variations on "Pirates 2 is about to ruin my life" . . . just antagonize the "Geez, it's only a movie" crowd because it falls into the same "All or Nothing" arguments that most discussions on films have become.
Posted by andrew at June 29, 2006 3:46 PM
comment #11
andrew says ...
Of course, maybe that's the point.
Posted by andrew at June 29, 2006 3:48 PM
comment #12
Chris Andrien says ...
DS, man I hate excusing bad movies by saying they're supposed to be bad. "Tent pole" movies are not required to be vapid, are they? Wasn't RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (for example) a "tent pole" movie? Was it empty? Fun does not have to be empty.
Jeff(rey Wells) posts his opinions here. Take them or leave them, but don't attack him for being critical. He's supposed to write he liked it to please you? Come on, bro. He had pre-conceived notions about SR too, but ultimately liked that. Like all critics, you learn his bents and take his opinions with them in mind. (Warning, this can backfire. I saw King Kong because Wells praised it and I figured it wasn't his type of movie so there had to be something there. There wasn't, save unintentional comedy and some serious monkey love, as in "I wanna get down with an ape.")
Anyway, I agree with the sentiments here that this SOUNDS like the first one, which charmed me for about 45 minutes then put me to sleep, on a plane ... and I don't sleep on planes. of course, I'll probably see the sequel for the eye candy but forgive me if I smoke a blunt first.
Posted by Chris Andrien at June 29, 2006 3:50 PM
comment #13
berg says ...
I want to hear the previous NOTHING speech read by Tim Blake Nelson, a la his Corruption speech in syriana ... that said: I liked two moments in POTC: DMC ... the opening where a crow plucks a chained man's eye out, and at one point Depp says Fragile (fra - gee - lee just like Darren McGavin says it in A Christmas Story) ... otherwise Pirates is a film for 10-year olds ... the killer CGI aside, the natives scene and the stowaway scene brought this film to a grinding halt
Posted by berg at June 29, 2006 3:52 PM
comment #14
NYCBusybody says ...
Fair review, Jeffrey, I commend you on being as fair as you were. I know you were steeled to loathe it, so I like that you at least gave it a fair go.
I loved Pirates 1, and I suppose I'm an empty-headed waste of life for being excited about this one. But I WILL admit...I didn't know it was so damn long. I don't think there's any possible way this could entertain me for 2 1/2 hours, as much as I dig it.
Posted by NYCBusybody at June 29, 2006 4:10 PM
comment #15
gh says ...
I wouldn't put Leary in the same class as Hunter Hunter S. Thompson. Leary was a smug, holier than thou know it all and the pied piper of LSD. A con man who did it all for the ladies. I differentiate him from Manson only because he was able to form a coherent thought.
Posted by gh at June 29, 2006 4:16 PM
comment #16
gh says ...
Thompson on the other hand was (at the peak of his powers) a spectacular fire eating entertainer who thrived on chaos and confrontation.
Posted by gh at June 29, 2006 4:18 PM
comment #17
Dixon Steele says ...
Jeez, a little criticism, Jeff, and you go all Nikki Finke on me.
Lighten up and take a Midol, dude.
Posted by Dixon Steele at June 29, 2006 4:29 PM
comment #18
oddDuck says ...
hey Dixon, I thought Wells's response to you was fucking SPOT ON, and at the very least a justifiable defense.
Posted by oddDuck at June 29, 2006 4:40 PM
comment #19
Mathew says ...
I believe the bloated run-times can be blamed on Titanic. Strangely that film feels more like two hours compared to something like King Kong which feels more like four hours. With that said a run-time is meaningless in the subjective sense. For those of us who are enlightened, POTC would probably be a great swashbuckler with a 90 minute length. We can see through the crassness of the film but still yearn to be entertained.
Posted by Mathew at June 29, 2006 4:44 PM
comment #20
Anonymous says ...
he can't take being accused of having an "aesthetic deficiency" . . .
Posted by Anonymous at June 29, 2006 4:46 PM
comment #21
nobdy says ...
I am glad you wrote this review Jeffrey.
I hated the first one and felt the exact same way as I am sure everyone else did too.
It's just not fair.
I remember seeing some kind of promo for the first one, and the writers said they wanted to write a movie that had a good mix of swashbuckling and just the right amt of dialog.
what the hell happened?
Do they even know who Errol Flynn is?
Posted by nobdy at June 29, 2006 5:18 PM
comment #22
Boone Carlyle says ...
Jeff...I kind of saw this coming. You seem to sometimes hope for more in silly meaningless movies then you should. The first film was absolutly devoid of anything. It was a fun family friendly theme park ride. Depp and the fact we haven't had a good pirate movie in ages(everyone loves pirates) made it stand out.
Some summer movies you expect more(X-Men). Others you should never expect anything other than something fun to look at and listen to for a couple of hours in order to avoid the summer heat.
I love a good Kubrick,Fincher, or PTAnderson film....but its summer. All the movies have sucked so far.
I must say that I looking forward to seeing this far more than Superman. I knew X3 would be a bummer...Superman just never interested me...but Pirates I knew would deliver that meaningless summer fun in the same way Spiderman does.
Posted by Boone Carlyle at June 29, 2006 6:13 PM
comment #23
sean says ...
I popped on the site and lo and behold, more Pirates stuff...so reluctantly I read on expecting a slam and...very fair assessment of the film. Obviously I haven't seen the movie, but Jeff, that was a nicely written reivew. Thanks for that. So let me ask this..when I go see this,hat movie should I see after to get my movie Karma back in balance?
Posted by sean at June 29, 2006 6:36 PM
comment #24
delbomber says ...
Jeff...
I don't want this to come out the wrong way, and my intention is not to criticize this site, your sweat and struggle to make it one of the best damn locales on the net, or attack you personally in any way. I simply mean to relate your recent themes of intellectual laziness and entertainment. I love your commentary and the overall savvy of the blog, but what do you think you have going here?
Is ‘Hollywood Elsewhere’ much different than the hollow blockbusters that spark your ire and fill you with so much contempt? 'Pirates of the Caribbean...' may be a polished, empty vessel, but in many ways so are the pages located at www.hollywood-elsewhere.com. As the makers of 'Pirates...' did, you put in a helluva lot of hard work, but you're not exactly plowing new literary or cinematic ground or elevating the art in any way.
‘HE’ stimulates, entertains, and enlightens, but in the end it's what I would call intellectual blue balls. The art lies in the material you so often reference, and if that's what I want, that's what I'll seek. Frankly, I'm grateful your site exists because it gives me satisfaction without the investment required by that heavier material--be it a novel, script, or critical essay--of which I certainly get my fill but sometimes need a break.
I tend to share your gut feelings about movies of this sort and avoid them almost as a rule, yet I can accept that they offer solace from emotionally and mentally taxing material similar to how your site does in a different context.
I would argue that on the basis of the effort put in and by the intentions of its creators ‘Pirates...’ is a lot closer to art than a lot of the crap hanging on the walls at MoMA, yet no one is calling it, or requires it to be, ‘Casablanca’. Despite the effort behind it, this site certainly isn’t ‘The Harvard Business Review,’ but the truth is, it doesn’t matter...I love it precisely because it’s not.
Cheers.
Posted by delbomber at June 29, 2006 6:58 PM
comment #25
sandekat says ...
"But you need the right kind of hollowed-out attitude about movies to have a truly good time with Pirates 2. If you're don't, you may have some problems."
Good God, you are such an unmitigated jerk. You don't have a clue about my problems or your own for that matter. I work long hours in an extremely stressful healthcare job and I don't have one hollowed out attitude....not a one. Sometimes I wished I did....it would be easier. I found the first breezy, funny, scary, exciting Pirates a wonderful tonic...I didn't need it to provide me with lessons, deeper meaning, or instruct me about fate: I see that every damn day of my life......I am looking forward to a second helping of the same funny release. Your arrogant dismissal of a movie you don't care for is your right, but you never ever stop there....nope, its got to imply that the approving audience member is suffering from some deeper well of slothful evil. What a smug idiot you are.
See Nicol D's list for some valid definitions of 'NOTHING', you nincompoop.
Posted by sandekat at June 29, 2006 8:26 PM
comment #26
travis b. says ...
i wasn't going to say anything...but nicol d's comment about the university and their teaching of shakespeare being "dated and a offensive" is a bunch of crap. did you go to a school that did that, or are you learning all of this from second hand information? seriously, i would love to see some statistics on that.
Posted by travis b. at June 29, 2006 8:54 PM
comment #27
Dixon Steele says ...
Since I started this thread, maybe this will end it (but I somehow doubt it).
Jeff, you claim that there is nothing, nothing, NOTHING going on in the film.
Really?
How about this?
It's very funny at times. Inventive & spunky every step of the way.
The performances of Bloom & Knightly gave you pleasure. (Holy Shit, Jeff is actually complimenting Keira K., an actress he's described numerous times as the worst of the worst).
Wonderfully choreographed action sequences.
A superbly calibrated and perfectly timed movie.
Photography is drop-dead luscious.
You're absolutely delighted and mesmerized by Nighy.
The craft that went into this is truly top of the line.
Looks great and buckles swash like a champ.
Yes, Jeff, these are your words. I'm glad you put a lot of time into writing them.
But how the hell can you say all these things and then call it NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING! It just makes no sense whatsoever.
'Cause that's a helluva lot of nothing.
Back to writing school for you, JW
Posted by Dixon Steele at June 29, 2006 10:41 PM
comment #28
Dan R% says ...
It's a good, balanced review.
Anyhow, I was never expecting a spiritual experience with this franchise...I was hesitent to fully embrace the first film as it is. While I like a lot of it, there definitely is something missing...the soul perhaps...yet Depp's performance is something for the ages in that film...which is why I rewatch it.
As for the new one, I hope to be entertained on a popcorn level. If I get anything out of it, I might actually be a little ticked off.
Posted by Dan R% at June 29, 2006 10:57 PM
comment #29
Nick says ...
Like it or not, this is the next generation's Indiana Jones trilogy. Big dumb fun for everyone.
Posted by Nick at June 29, 2006 11:16 PM
comment #30
Platinum Bob says ...
I think Jeff's breaking a butterfly on a wheel with this one - I sort of wish he poured this kind of vitriol on the pretentious, pseudo-intellectual Oscar-chasers that the studios pound out every winter. Pirates 2 is a popcorn movie - doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Posted by Platinum Bob at June 29, 2006 11:31 PM
comment #31
Jeffrey Wells says ...
Taking a second and final stab at getting through to Dixon Steele. You asked "how could I say all these things [about "pirates"] and then call it NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING! It just makes no sense whatsoever." The words I wrote, Mr. Steele, were "there is nothing, nothing, nothing going on inside this film." INSIDE this film...okay? As opposed to outside or superficially? I reiterated this point when I wrote a coupe of paragraphs down that "it's almost creepy how everything that's good about this film is entirely about the eyes. Nothing kicks in within. Not ever, not once." "Within" meaning the non-literal, non-physical, spiritual/emotional stuff....right? Please don't belabor this point any further.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells at June 30, 2006 1:21 AM
comment #32
sandekat says ...
'Nothing kicks in within. Not ever, not once.;
Yeah, I get it: 'nothing'.......FOR YOU, Jeff . Its all about you and your inability or unwillingness to imagine how someone else might view this film with 'more than their eyes'since you can't manage it. Like I said: stunning arrogance that often alienates you from those you seek to influence, even when you are trying to be inspirational.
You are able to find some 'kick within' that allowed you to enjoy 'Dumb and Dumberer': Bravo for you. I hope you will eventually evolve enough as a human being to realize that others are able to do the same with films which you thoroughly disapprove.
Posted by sandekat at June 30, 2006 5:15 AM
comment #33
dmac says ...
hey Nicole D, your "nothing" post was clever, but if you change Leary and Thompson to Ronald Reagan and G W Bush you'll be closer to the mark.
Posted by dmac at June 30, 2006 5:30 AM
comment #34
Dixon Steele says ...
I promise to stop "belaboring" the point, if you promise to stop writing about a PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movie like it's THE CONSTANT GARDENER.
Happy 4th!
Posted by Dixon Steele at June 30, 2006 5:51 AM
comment #35
Chuck says ...
I respect Mr. Wells' opinion and I can understand not subscribing to the whole Pirates shabang, but to compare the Pirates movies unfavorably to vapid crap like Con Air or Gone in 60 Seconds?
Posted by Chuck at June 30, 2006 5:54 AM
comment #36
Jesse says ...
First of all, Jeff, it's a waste of karmic energy to try and explain your points to a guy that thinks "lighten up and take a Midol, dude" is a sterling bon mot.
Second, I totally agree about the insane running times of a lot of current films . . . it's almost as if the studios are equating length with quality. When I saw Kong in the theater, I was wowed by all of the effects and the action and the smashy-smashy. . . It wasn't until I bought the DVD and watched the film with a more critical eye that I saw how much could have been removed from that film to make it better. Jack Black, for example.
Us "liberal types" tend to get angry when we hear people say "I just want to turn my brain off and have a good time and not think so much", mainly because that phrase often comes from people who are incapable of thinking less. However, I'm able to switch my brain off for the big summer popcorn loud-and-shiny mega-fests, and I can enjoy many of them on a surface level. I look forward to seeing POTC2, occasionally dropping my jaw at the effects, with one eye on my watch.
Posted by Jesse at June 30, 2006 8:33 AM
comment #37
Kellyb says ...
"I never realized in the mid-to-late '90s that The Rock, Con Air and Gone in 60 Seconds were manifestations of Bruckheimer's golden era, but they sure seem that way now compared to Pirates." Hmmm........ Was this really considered the golden era?
Posted by Kellyb at June 30, 2006 6:22 PM
comment #38
Mike says ...
Is comedy not enlightenment? Is a film where every second is fun, entertaining, and beautifully crafted not inspiring or a major esteem lift? The enjoyment of a film is itself a reaction to something more than just "visual eye candy". Visual eye candy eventually becomes boring.
Your statement that there is nothing, nothing, nothing in this film beyond the print and the technical creations (in other words, there is no feeling, no emotion to this film) is such hyperbole. This is especially true considering the rest of your review.
With all of the great comments you wrote regarding different aspects of the film, it amazes me you were still stubborn enough to give the film a negative review. In fact, it even felt like it was so hard for you to say something good about the film, as if you just hated to admit it was all just so good. I sure hope you can see why one would be annoyed by this review.
Posted by Mike at June 30, 2006 10:39 PM
comment #39
Owen says ...
Wow... it sounds like you really did like it but were afraid to admit it. You alternated sentences saying how good or how bad it was. Did you decide to not like it before you saw it?
Posted by Owen at July 1, 2006 7:36 AM
comment #40
Anonymous says ...
I must be one of the very few who dislike all these computer generated stuff in films. Just give me a simple movie with a story and good acting and I am happy. I don't see any of the blockbusters that abound during the summer since I am very careful with my hard earned money and my time so It's lucky if I see 3 movies a year.
Anyway I saw Pirates 1 on TV and thought it was a waste of a half hour before I changed the channel.
Posted by Anonymous at July 4, 2006 6:49 AM
comment #41
Katy says ...
I totally agree with this review of Pirates II. Great special effects, but no plot! Arrgh! Two-and-a-half hours are too long to sit when the plot is half-witted. Great imagination went into this thing, but if only there had been a scene or two, preferably by candle light, where a pirate gives a bit of background into the lore of Davy Jones, The Flying Dutchman, etc. Adults, let alone kids, needed to know at least the basics about these characters -- they are a part of our folk history. Less eye candy and more story and the film would have been magnificent.
Posted by Katy at July 8, 2006 11:23 PM
Post a comment