McCarthy vs. "Pirates"
Another big gun -- Variety's Todd McCarthy -- has slammed Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest for being empty and bloated and too long. He says "there's not a genuine moment" in either of the two Pirates films, "no point of human contact...they're baldly concocted, confected, engineered." (Just as I said in my review that "there's nothing, nothing, nothing going on inside [Pirates 2]...nothing kicks in within...not ever, not once.") And he claims the new one "puts the viewer into a bland stupor." And "why wear out the film's welcome with a wearisome two-and-a-half-hour running time," McCarthy wonders, "when a tight-ship 100 minutes would have insured more constant excitement, not to mention giving exhibitors more showtimes per day?"
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 4, 2006 at 12:01 AM
comment #1
Rob says ...
:"why wear out the film's welcome with a wearisome two-and-a-half-hour running time," McCarthy laments, "when a tight-ship 100 minutes would have insured more constant excitement, not to mention giving exhibitors more showtimes per day?"
Exactly. Good critic, McCarthy.
Posted by Rob at July 4, 2006 12:35 AM
comment #2
Fielding says ...
Depp aside, the first POTC was a long-winded, uninvolving and repetitive bore. Why should this one be any different?
Posted by Fielding at July 4, 2006 1:18 AM
comment #3
gh says ...
Amen.
Posted by gh at July 4, 2006 1:40 AM
comment #4
Chris says ...
another than the amusing bit where Johnny Depp finds out the girl is burning the rum, I forget everything that happened in the first movie 20 minutes after it was over.
Posted by Chris at July 4, 2006 5:01 AM
comment #5
Craig says ...
So should it be a surprise that someone who didn't like the first POTC didn't like the sequel either? Why even have him review it f he comes in with a negative bias? And people wonder why more films are critic-proof these days...
Posted by Craig at July 4, 2006 7:03 AM
comment #6
Chris says ...
y'all talk of films being critic proof.
Is that to imply there was when critics DID drive the box office.
My answer: no.
Critics didn't stop people from seeing Abbott & Costello; Hope & Crosby; Elvis Presley cookie-cutter, gyration-filled musicals; horror flicks in any decade; blaxplotation films; John Hughes films; Adam Sandler films; etc., etc., etc.
Genre films (and, yes, Popcorn Film is a genre) that know what they're doing are going to make money. They always will. They will always be critic proof.
Critics can help spread word of mouth on lesser-known films that might slip through the cracks or not be of an obvious genre. ... But they'll never be able to hurt openings.
Posted by Chris at July 4, 2006 7:18 AM
comment #7
Doug says ...
Harry Knowles at aicn, the kind of fan/viewer/critic "Pirates" aims to please "love, love, love(s)" "Pirates 2."
Posted by Doug at July 4, 2006 7:37 AM
comment #8
Bill says ...
Yes. POTC sucks. Don't see the new one. We get it. Move on.
Posted by Bill at July 4, 2006 7:43 AM
comment #9
Greg says ...
Why don't you post some of the good reviews it's received? We know you don't like the movie, why can't you just leave it at that? Any child can chose the reviews that prove their own point, why not give both sides to the story?
Posted by Greg at July 4, 2006 7:53 AM
comment #10
delbomber says ...
"Despite the understandably relieved announcement by Superman Returns naysayer David Poland that five big-name critics have joined him in panning Bryan Singer's film...you just have seven sourpusses standing off in the corner along with the seven dwarves, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and the seven deadly sins...no biggie."
Jeff...you really ought to think about splitting HE into two distinct areas...your trade writings on the front page and your juvenile ranting on another...you ARE David Poland, might as well lift his format...
Posted by delbomber at July 4, 2006 8:17 AM
comment #11
dafas says ...
Honestly, the sides you and Poland have drawn are pretty embarassing. He loves Pirates and you hate it. You love Superman. He hates it. Both of you print articles, figures, etc. supporting your sides.
Just review a film and move the fuck on.
You're grown men.
Posted by dafas at July 4, 2006 8:34 AM
comment #12
Geoff says ...
Craig said:
"So should it be a surprise that someone who didn't like the first POTC didn't like the sequel either? Why even have him review it f he comes in with a negative bias? And people wonder why more films are critic-proof these days..."
The whole point of a Variety review is to provide a critique with an emphasis on what kind of business the film will do, how it plays, who will it appeal to, etc. Taking that into account, each reviewer for the publication should be able to provide this sort of substance, regardless of their personal taste in movies. The Variety reviews are not traditionally geared toward the general public (although the Internet has significantly evolved its audience), but toward Hollywood itself.
Posted by Geoff at July 4, 2006 8:36 AM
comment #13
Larry says ...
Movies didn't used to open as widely as they do now. There was a time when a film would open in one theatre in a town, and roll out across the country (not unlike art house films today)--the first weekend, or even first few weeks, didn't make or break a film.
In such an atmosphere, critics could help or hurt films more easily, even major hits. The famous example is Bonnie And Clyde, which might not have been given a full chance if it had not been championed.
Posted by Larry at July 4, 2006 8:44 AM
comment #14
bachelorcool says ...
David Poland loves Pirates, hates Superman. Jeffrey Wells loves Superman, hates Pirates. What is this? The return of Louella Parsons and Hedda Hopper for the digital age?
Posted by bachelorcool at July 4, 2006 9:22 AM
comment #15
Alan Green says ...
there was some very sharp (technical) writing in the first movie. unfortunately, there were also long talky scenes that didn't accomplish much. movies like this are hard to watch in one sitting - another argument for the home/dvd experience.
i won't make the mistake of seeing potc: dmc in the theater. i just don't have 2.5 hrs for the movie + .4 hrs for the previews/commercials/announcements + .75 hrs for travel/parking/standing in line (add .25 hrs in line for opening weekend of tentpole movie) + .1 hrs just to get out of the theater after the movie ends.
seriously, what does that add up to? i could write a 600 word piece in that much time - or watch another movie on dvd, with breaks for snacks i make myself (maybe a nap), read the paper, etc.
Posted by Alan Green at July 4, 2006 10:05 AM
comment #16
Anonymous says ...
Hopefully it won't be as boring as the first. After the first half-hour, Pirates was the same movie over and over.
Posted by Anonymous at July 4, 2006 10:06 AM
comment #17
Janet says ...
Critics have lost touch with the general public. But, having said that critics are people too. Some people will love this movie, others won't. I've heard that DMC is very much a middle act to the trilogy. It could very well mean the second movie might seem more in focus to some after viewing the third movie. I admit I have not seen the movie yet. I have no idea if it is good, bad or indifferent. By the way , Jeff, have you seen it yet? If you haven't, then try watching it with an open mind. Hope that isn't too much of a stretch for you because unless you do, your criticism of this film or any film means reality nothing.
Posted by Janet at July 4, 2006 11:07 AM
comment #18
Janet says ...
sorry, I meant relatively nothing
Posted by Janet at July 4, 2006 11:09 AM
comment #19
Roddy Reta says ...
I thought POTC was enormously entertaining, especially with Johnny Depp's performance. The vast majority of the movie public agrees with my view. The critics, as usual, are out of step. They would rather watch "An Inconvenient Truth" for the tenth time, and stare at their navels.
Posted by Roddy Reta at July 4, 2006 12:40 PM
comment #20
BL says ...
This is Well's blog - and to object that he would DARE use his own website to reflect HIS opinion is infantile and unreasonable.
It's nice he offers this forum to allow his readers to express their opinion - and I am sure he realizes fans of the Pirates movies will step up and defend them - but he has no duty whatsoever to promote a film he does not like.
Posted by BL at July 4, 2006 1:52 PM
comment #21
Jeffrey Wells says ...
WELLS TO JANET: Yes, I've seen "Pirates 2". I ran a review a week or so ago, and I've linked to the review in my riff about McCarthy's review today.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells at July 4, 2006 2:38 PM
comment #22
sandekat says ...
Janet, hell yes, he's given it his 'review' ie 'self-fulfilling prohesy.
Jeff, so I guess Todd is your new hero....that is until he crosses you and dislikes a movie that gives you that kick inside......
...but despite all your fulminations, I'm really looking forward to this movie, and from what I've read, I think I going to like it fine.
(PS: on the other hand, Superman was very, very disappointing....I didn't realize that I needed to review the 20 year old movies and the comic books to get enough back story to be able to see this newest film without saying, 'Huh?' every 10 minutes or so....)
Posted by sandekat at July 4, 2006 3:09 PM
comment #23
Not Joe Public says ...
Janet: "Critics have lost touch with the general public."
Janet, the general public are idiots.
Posted by Not Joe Public at July 5, 2006 6:24 AM
comment #24
Jack's Back says ...
The LA Times hated it as well. Seems like the naysayers keep comparing it to the second Matrix movie.
Posted by Jack's Back at July 5, 2006 9:04 AM
comment #25
sandekat says ...
I don't know how the LA TImes will score her review, which while no rave, certainly doesn't read like she HATES it. She makes the usual complaint: too long, too complicated. I didn' t see where she mentions a matrix.
Her review begins: "It's like Lois Lane said, the world doesn't need Superman, but it could use more of Jack Sparrow. So, for that matter, could "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," the second installment in what will soon be the first major motion picture trilogy based on a theme park ride subsequently remade in its image. (Where's Jean Baudrillard when we need him?) Johnny Depp's foppish, mercurial, sexually ambiguous and probably very smelly scoundrel is the morally fluid, completely unreliable soul of the film, not to mention a welcome change from the drippy, neurotic heroes that have come to define what it means to be super in the movies lately.
The sources of Jack Sparrow's appeal are too numerous and obvious to count, but it's his lesser qualities that make him refreshing. You can't blame a guy for consistently putting his self-preservation first when everyone he meets wants to kiss, kill or eat him. For all his bluster, Sparrow is as vulnerable as his name implies — and the forces out to get him have multiplied and grown more fearsome."
I think its going to be an enjoyable movie for those of us who have an attention span and don't mind twisty tales that may require thought and revisits.
Posted by sandekat at July 5, 2006 9:29 AM