Pirates triumph

• email this story
• read comments (83)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

Because the $142 million earned by Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End over the Memorial Day weekend opening was the absolute biggest ever, that means that Movie Nation is delighted, Gore Verbinksi and Jerry Bruckheimer are crowned geniuses who are supremely in touch with the hoi polloi, and all the Pirates haters are curmudgeons who need top re-screw their heads on....is that it?

comment #1

D.Z. says ...

Supposedly, it actually did worse than the last two.
But it could end up dropping pretty fast its second weekend like the other threequels.

comment #2

Jayne Gacey says ...

How could 14 million people be so stupid?! All of this could have been avoided if more of you voted for Kerry.

comment #3

Josh Massey says ...

Well, I'll admit it - I dug the hell out of At World's End. Chalk it up to lowered expectations perhaps, but I felt it was very well done, and certainly far better than the last film.

comment #4

Larry says ...

Pirates 3 was so mindbogglingly bad it made me nostalgic for Pirates 2. It'll drop fast, but it's still a megahit.

comment #5

EOTW says ...

Actually, it did just over $400 million worldwide since it's release and is the biggest moneymaker ever just starting out. Wells, give it up man. Just accept this and move on. I know, I know. you can't, just like that guy coming back into the bar to shoot it out with Josey Wales.

comment #6

Deege says ...

I actually liked the first one. It was a good popcorn flick, and I thought Depp's performance was subversive. The second one was all about the spectacle of Davy Jones and his crew. This one? Sucked. HARD. It was all over the place with the multiple alliances and backstabbing and unresolved plotlines. Throw in a "HUH?" ending and that equals a big dropoff next weekend.

They owe me three hours of my life.

comment #7

romeoisbleeding says ...

The score on Rotten Tomatoes for this movie is only 48. Not that that matters at all obviously.

comment #8

sandekat says ...

It means that not everyone likes the same thing, and one person's entertainment is another's purgatory (or Davy Jones locker). No one is right and no one is wrong, but the folks who live on the internet movie sites will continue to mistake opinion for truth.

I enjoyed At World's End. I got my money's worth and I found it a delightful investment of time. I enjoyed all the puzzles, spectacle, and florid acting.

That said, they tried to harnass too much into one film and gave some of the characters and ideas too little development, so I found it much less than perfect, but way good enough....for me.

However, I sat beside a young ADHD couple and I'm pretty sure after the repeated departures, cell phones checks, and prolonged rooting around in purses and backpacks, that they may havea wee bit of trouble with the story line and will likely tell all who listen that it was real confusing, and most damning of all, boring. Depite the fact that they looked, spoke, and acted dumb as toast, they'll agree with Jeff's opinion about this film, and that will make them A#1 in his book.

That's how it works, doesn't it Jeff?

comment #9

themutilator says ...

Im not really a Pirates fan...just a film fan. I love the excitement of the big summer releases. I went to the first showing at my fave theatre on Friday. About 30 people there....love that. Well, 1st hour good, 2nd hour tedious, 3rd hour great.

I also saw Bug the same day--Cookers X 10. Went to see 28 Weeks later for the 2nd time on Sat.

Yesterday I saw Paris Je'Taime which was lovely. It was one of those films that make you think "that's why I go to movies",it was touching, thoughtful, magical, romantic, beautiful to look at, just lovely.

What Ive wanted to post for a long time: A movie isnt THE BEST MOVIE because its your favorite movie, its just your fave movie.
My example: I believe Children of Men was the best film of last year. Dreamgirls was my favorite movie...not the best, but my favorite.

comment #10

Jayne Gacey says ...

So you're saying TOTAL RECALL is not the best movie ever? I'm confused.

comment #11

BNick says ...

I went to an 8pm Pirates show on Thursday in NYC and it didn't even sell out. I found the third one to be even more confusing than the second (which I should have rewatched beforehand) but ultimately I think the character resolutions were interesting, even touching in one case.

I'm sure this has been said before and will be said again but there was a nice 110 minute movie in those 170 minutes somewhere.

comment #12

Rob says ...

I saw Paris je'taime and Once this weekend and loved them both. So romantic, and they made me want to travel to Paris and Dublin immediately.

comment #13

BNick says ...

Paris je'taime was great. It didn't delve into cliches at all and, true to form, Cuaron's segment was done in a single shot.

comment #14

d.j. says ...

Didn't Spider-Man 3 have a bigger opening with 151 million?

comment #15

d.j. says ...

Ah, followed the link-- Pirates had the biggest Memorial Day weekend opening ever.

comment #16

Zoidberg says ...

Pirates would have done even better if they'd had the sense to not release it so close to Spiderman and Shrek....
Most people are only willing to go to the movies so many times in one month.

And I would still rather see Pirates than any of the other blockbusters. At least in Pirates, there's something going on; Spiderman is just a bunch of CG shots of a guy swinging around and shit getting broken. Boring.

comment #17

cjKennedy says ...

Glad to see some love for Paris je t'aime. A perfect antidote to the summer hubbub. My expectations of it were pretty low because usually those omnibus films are pretty hit and miss.

Once is also worthy of the hype it's gotten.

Oh this thread is about Pirates. Yeah, whatever. It turns out Jeff that people who went to see the movie aren't idiots and the people who didn't aren't necessarily curmudgeons. As much as turning everything into an either/or proposition increases your hit counts, it just isn't so.

comment #18

corey3rd says ...

did Disney even try to do a marketing gimmick on Thursday where they run the 2nd film and then the new one? The second one was merely the first half of this movie and not a complete film.

comment #19

Hallick says ...

I hated the fat, lumbering, vacuous, bathos-ridden thing. One friend I saw it with felt ripped off. Another one fell asleep, which convinced a third friend that she didn't even want to attempt going to this debackle. From the opening musical number that stunk like my worst nightmare of a Broadway adaptation of the trilogy to that effing worthless tag at the end of the credits which didn't count for anything imaginable, I felt like I was in hell. And screw your "original" score, Hans Zimmer. Same old tired crap since the early 90s.

At this point, the phrase "you people are taking these blockbusters/popcorn movies too seriously" should be replaced with "you blockbusters are taking YOURSELVES too seriously"! An effing pirate movie based on an amusement park ride that regards itself with all of the turgid pomposity of a Wagner opera wannabe deserves to be sliced up for guitar picks.

comment #20

Joshua Mooney says ...

You make a good point, Hallick, but on the OTHER hand, we need to take these movies seriously if only because their triumphant B.O. determines the future of Hollywood's deployment of blood and treasure. This summer's the 30th anniversary of "Star Wars," which started THAT whole ball rolling in the first place. Or maybe it was "Jaws" in '75. Yet, in retrospect, those are two great movies! I guess it's like the lady said: "It's the PICTURES that got small."

[At this point, the phrase "you people are taking these blockbusters/popcorn movies too seriously" should be replaced with "you blockbusters are taking YOURSELVES too seriously"! An effing pirate movie based on an amusement park ride that regards itself with all of the turgid pomposity of a Wagner opera wannabe deserves to be sliced up for guitar picks.

Posted by: Hallick at May 29, 2007 11:18 AM]

comment #21

Terry McCarty says ...

Re PARIS JE'TAIME:
Has anyone seen it at the reopened National Theater in Westwood?
and
Who owns the National now that it's no longer Mann-operated?

comment #22

cjKennedy says ...

Apparently a retail developer (Ron Simms) owns it and plans to demolish the existing structure as soon as permits are approved. I don't know how long that will take or who is programming movies there in the mean time.

comment #23

christian says ...

to paraphrase a line from an actual film made by people and not a corporate marketing team:

POTC: AWE might taste like pumpkin pie but i'll never know because i ain't going to see the motherfuckin' thing.

comment #24

Aladdin Sane says ...

I think my enjoyment of the film can be attributed to lowered expectations. I had fun, so sue me.

And SPOILER:
Plus, a 100 foot woman who turns into crabs? My friends and I had a field day with that one. And if you need that explained, well, talk to your parents. I'm sure they can fill you in.

comment #25

Josh Massey says ...

I just don't get the hate.

I mean, it has a truly great performance in the middle of it, some fantastic setpieces (the desert scene sticks out in my mind), a plot that's not spoonfed, and astounding effects (Davy Jones and the final battle in particular.) It's a corporate summer blockbuster, but at least it's one that shows some real effort in front of and behind the camera - in fact, I think it's the first time Verbinski has truly earned his visual rep.

Hell, it's better than a lot of recent films that have won Best Picture. Ok, I guess that's not saying a lot, but still.

comment #26

Hallick says ...

"I just don't get the hate. I mean, it has a truly great performance in the middle of it"

I gotta grant you that - the monkey was awesome.

comment #27

mitch says ...

POTC:AWE

hated

every

minute

of

it

but I had fun at Spidey III. thought the whole turned-up-agressive-dork bit was damn funny

comment #28

jeffmcm says ...

Mitch: I agree with you on Spider-Man. disagree on Pirates: regardless of what one might think of how convoluted the narrative was or how noisy and overpowering most of the film is, I don't see how anyone couldn't be entertained by the monkey, or Jack Sparrow in limbo, or the sight of a pirate ship sailing over a sand dune, or big parts of Rush's performance.

comment #29

Jayne Gacey says ...

Josh, how is POTC better than The Departed, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, The Return of the King? You go too far, sir!

comment #30

Josh Massey says ...

Pirates 3 is better than Crash, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind and Chicago. But then again, a video of Johnny Depp drooling in a bucket for two hours would be better than those films.

I didn't say every recent Best Picture winner.

comment #31

quizkid82 says ...

• "'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End,' which, ... might have been alternately titled 'At Wit's End.'"
-- Carina Chocano, L.A. Times

• "If there is to be another sequel it will have to be called 'Pirates of the Caribbean – At Wit's End.'"
-- Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor

• "A movie made at wits' end."
-- Michael Sragow, Baltimore Sun

• "The rest of 'At World's End' left me at wit's end ..."
-- Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

• "At one point in 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At Wits’ End,' as it must surely come to be known ..."
-- Anthony Lane, New Yorker

• "Maybe they should have called it 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At Wit's End.'"
-- Richard Schickel, Time

• "At Wit's End: Pirates Blows" (headline)
-- Nathan Lee, Village Voice

• "At Wit’s End" (headline)
-- Andy Klein, L.A. City Beat

• "Pirates of the Caribbean: At Wit’s End" (headline)
-- Eric Robinette, Dayton Daily News

I just can't wait for all those incredibly creative negative reviews a week from Friday that contain the phrase, "The number thirteen is awfully unlucky for Ocean and his crew..."

comment #32

Jayne Gacey says ...

quizkid, I'm looking forward for Gene Shalit's "Thirteen? I lost my virginity when I was thirteen. She was a peach, just like this movie!"

comment #33

cjKennedy says ...

I understand the people who like it and I understand the people who hate it sight unseen, but I'm a little mystified by the people who've seen it already but didn't like it. What were you expecting exactly and what didn't the film deliver?

For the people who liked it, where would you fit it in comparison to the other two?

comment #34

LYTrules says ...

CJ, I liked it the best of the three.

It's stuffed full of plot and effects and other things; one might not like it, but it certainly isn't empty and vacuous. And IMO, Gore Verbinski finally seems to have gotten comfortable directing big action sequences -- the ship-to-ship battle in 3 is the best of them.

(Master and Commander was better than any of the three, but that's a separate debate)

comment #35

Josh Massey says ...

LYT: Exactly. Compare it to any of the battle scenes in the first film. I know he's playing with a much bigger budget here, but his visual maturation shows nonetheless.

comment #36

Rich S. says ...

I'm glad not everyone hates this movie. The premise of this being a soulless corporate ripoff never made any sense to me. If you're going to rip people off, why invest $300 million, put every penny on the screen, and make the movie nearly 3 hours long? Country Bears and Haunted Mansion, yes. POTC, no.

I actually liked AWE more than DMC, though not as much as the first film. Depp is smarter and funnier this time around and the action set pieces are top-notch. The plot twists are kind of confusing, but in the end they don't lead anywhere anyway. Like the second film, AWE could have been about an hour shorter, but as cj observed, if you hated every minute of it, you probably went in knowing you would. Kind of hard to ask for 3 hours of your life back when you willingly gave it up.

comment #37

sandekat says ...

One of the music tracks on the soundtrack of "At World's End" is 'At WIt's End'.....the so-called critics can't even claim that bon mot. They are clueless and becoming less relevant by the month.

I agree Rich, anyone who went to this one and hated. every. minute. of . it.? Now that takes real work.

comment #38

christian says ...

look at the shiny pirates...you are getting sleepy...plot...more plot...this is a mythology...trilogy...franchise...tentpole...plot...

comment #39

christian says ...

"If you're going to rip people off, why invest $300 million, put every penny on the screen, and make the movie nearly 3 hours long?

otherwise we'd never have heartfelt classics like CLEOPATRA, INCHON, WATERWORLD, SANTA CLAUS THE MOVIE...

comment #40

Josh Massey says ...

The point: This isn't Smokey and the Bandit 3. This isn't Jaws 3-D. This isn't Porky's Revenge. Hell, it isn't Spider-Man 3.

This isn't a blatant cash-grab sequel with no heart behind it. Whether you like the film or not, it showed thought, skill and passion. They weren't simply showing up and collecting paychecks like the filmmakers were in those previous films I mentioned.

comment #41

Joshua Mooney says ...

Mr. Massey: By referencing "Jaws 3-D" are you suggesting that Louis Gossett Jr. doesn't pour his heart and soul into each and every performance? I say he DOES, sir. (And yes, that includes "Diggstown" and "Iron Eagle II.")

[The point: This isn't Smokey and the Bandit 3. This isn't Jaws 3-D. This isn't Porky's Revenge. Hell, it isn't Spider-Man 3.

This isn't a blatant cash-grab sequel with no heart behind it. Whether you like the film or not, it showed thought, skill and passion. They weren't simply showing up and collecting paychecks like the filmmakers were in those previous films I mentioned.

Posted by: Josh Massey at May 30, 2007 08:22 AM]

comment #42

christian says ...

"This isn't a blatant cash-grab sequel with no heart behind it."

then what is it? and whose heart? bruckheimer or disney? and to say it has more noble intent than SPIDERMAN 3 which is at least based on a genuine original modern mythology is missing the tentpole for the trees...

comment #43

Joshua Mooney says ...

Jayne, you just made me laugh. Well done. But let's be honest: No WAY Shalit lost it at 13, and furthermore, I doubt she was a peach. At best she was a hard, green pear injected with a hypodermic full of water to give the illusion of juice, of spurting. Movie magic. Another lie.

[quizkid, I'm looking forward for Gene Shalit's "Thirteen? I lost my virginity when I was thirteen. She was a peach, just like this movie!"

Posted by: Jayne Gacey at May 29, 2007 10:46 PM]

comment #44

Rich S. says ...

christian, I'd say you're facing a conundrum. Earlier in the thread, you state rather forcefully that you're not going to see the movie, which, I believe, is the proper reaction if you know you're not going to like it.

However, then you go on to take pot shots at the movie without having seen it, which most of the posters on these boards agree is not cricket.

So, does sewer rat taste like pumpkin pie?

comment #45

Josh Massey says ...

Mr. Mooney: I have not made, and never will make, a willful slight toward Mr. Gossett Jr. Should you require it, I will promptly write a 5,000-word thesis on the metamorphosis of Chappy Sinclair from Iron Eagle through Iron Eagle IV as penance for even making you think I would be guilty of such a crime against Gossett.

Please note I made no mention of Aces: Iron Eagle III in my "blatant cash grab" passage. Because, or course, that would be preposterous - nay, blasphemous.

comment #46

jeffmcm says ...

Christian, I think there can be a wide variety in what defines a 'blatant cash-grab movie'. Obviously you intend it to be a perjorative. But it's too vague a term to really be usefully descriptive. What movies currently playing _aren't_ 'blatant cash-grab movies', first of all?

comment #47

christian says ...

fair questions, but no conundrum at all. the first one was tolerable only for mr. depp thus i'm fairly certain that the remaining two will live up to my idea of diminishing returns. i could give a shit about the arc of keira beanpole or orlando bloom.

i don't need to get a chocolate enema to know i'm not gonna like it. i have mad psychic movie skills. besides, i know all too well the work of messers. bruckheimer and verbinski. color me unimpressed but not uninformed. i don't like the disney nor bruckheimer brand.

and some movies have "cash grab and carry" written all over and some don't. the fact that the top three films in the nation are all the third of sequels doesn't make me warm inside.

and FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF WHATEVER might taste like caviar but after the shit sandwich of the first, i'm not likely to go for seconds. or in the case of POTC, thirds.

comment #48

Rich S. says ...

So, by your chocolate enema rationale, the next time NYCBB goes off on a Michael Moore or Sean Penn movie, he gets a pass, correct?

comment #49

jeffmcm says ...

Hey Christian:
care to elaborate on any of that or should we just take it all as granted?

comment #50

Joshua Mooney says ...

Oh, you BET I want that 5,000-word thesis, Mr. Massey. It's the least you could do. Sheesh! I'd like you to work an apology to Jason Gedrick in there as well (although perhaps that goes without saying). And further, to quote Mason Adams in "F/X": "My desk. Tomorrow."

[Mr. Mooney: I have not made, and never will make, a willful slight toward Mr. Gossett Jr. Should you require it, I will promptly write a 5,000-word thesis on the metamorphosis of Chappy Sinclair from Iron Eagle through Iron Eagle IV as penance for even making you think I would be guilty of such a crime against Gossett.

Please note I made no mention of Aces: Iron Eagle III in my "blatant cash grab" passage. Because, or course, that would be preposterous - nay, blasphemous.

Posted by: Josh Massey at May 30, 2007 10:31 AM]

comment #51

christian says ...

"So, by your chocolate enema rationale, the next time NYCBB goes off on a Michael Moore or Sean Penn movie, he gets a pass, correct?"

i think i show a trifle more rationality to film and culture than somebody who actively wishes for a filmmaker's death like mr. nycbb. is he the only choice for who i get lumped in with?

"care to elaborate on any of that or should we just take it all as granted?"

you want more?

and really, if you believe that you must see a film in order to form any opinion, then i await all of your thoughtful reviews of BRATZ and KICKIN IT OLD SKOOL. who knows? these two films could be masterpieces.

comment #52

jeffmcm says ...

I just don't think it's clear what your critical attitude is, especially as to why these movies stick out as particularly egregious.

Also, yes, I do think you need to see a movie to be able to discuss it. 'Quality' is only one factor to be considered, especially when it comes to a movie with as much craft and money on-screen as Pirates. You could watch it to have an opinion about the visuals, digital effect, performances, sociological/political statements (yes, there are some), etc.

Scorn is lazy.

comment #53

cjKennedy says ...

I have an admittedly irrational intolerance for Bruckheimer going back to Beverly Hills Cop II. The macho pose struck by Simpson/Bruckheimer felt like the epitome of everything that was bad about Hollywood at a time when it was just dawning on me that movies could be more than empty entertainment. BHC2 remains one of the worst movies I've ever paid money to see in a theater and for 15 years Bruckheimer was my poster child for Hollywood at it's awful, excessive worst.

I didn't see a single Bruckheimer production from Days of Thunder to Bad Boys II. In 2003 people insisted I had to see Pirates of the Caribbean. "Forget everything you think you know about Jerry Bruckheimer" they said. "This is different. You'll like it." So I broke down and I watched it.

It was ok as long as Depp was on the screen, but it wore out its welcome and became tedious. T was hardly worth ruining 15 years of being Bruckheimer Free. I was actually kind of pissed off. The irony of knowing Depp had to fight for his characterization which turned out to be the main redeeming quality of the movie wasn't lost on me, but it didn't matter. The streak was broken.

I decided then to go back and watch all the Bruckheimer movies I'd missed. I made it as far as Armageddon before having to quit in disgust, my worst imaginings realized.

I went into Pirates 2 with knives drawn, fully prepared to hate it and of course I did. If you want to hate a movie enough, you will find a way.

If I could go into 3 with an open mind, I bet I could find a way to enjoy it, but I doubt I'm capable. Fairly or not, when I watch a Bruckheimer movie I just can't get the stench of empty avarice out of my nostrils. It feels like the creative impulse or even the showman's impulse has been subsumed by the desire to make cash and be #1. It's a mental block. It's unfair, but it's unshakable. Hollywood has been built on money, but Bruckheimer is my bad guy.

So it's probably best if I skip Pirates 3. I'm sure it will still make a billion dollars even without my 10. If I see it, no one really wants to hear me bitch about it anyway so what do I have to gain?

I still refuse to accept Wells' contention that liking it or not is some kind of IQ test or a social statement. It's harmless fun for some and a waste of time for others, but it doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

comment #54

Rich S. says ...

christian, my point is that your criticism seemed to go beyond merely attacking the concept to attacking the content of the film itself. For that, yes, I think you do need to see the movie.

For example, AWE contains a terrific Gilliamesque sequence where Jack Sparrow is trapped in Davy Jones' Locker. During the sequence, Depp has a quote that is clearly a tip of the hat to Hunter S. Thompson. There's no corporate cookie-cutter at work there. But if you don't go to the movie, you don't know that content is in there.

comment #55

christian says ...

"Scorn is lazy."

so is that all-emcompassing sentence. and scorn is not lazy if backed by evidence. i've seen more bruckheimer films than i've missed. not a goddam one has moved me nor made me feel as if missing them would have constituted a gap in my film knowledge outside of measuring standards of mediocre popularity. but somehow me missing out two overhyped sequels to an already limp film means i'm the one who's not being fair?

'Quality' is only one factor to be considered, especially when it comes to a movie with as much craft and money on-screen as Pirates."

in other words, forget script and story, go watch the pretty expensive shell. no thanks, my gut is filled with hollywood sweets at this point. and this is a bizarre argument: go see the big shiny film because it's big and shiny -- exactly the point i was making against it.

"During the sequence, Depp has a quote that is clearly a tip of the hat to Hunter S. Thompson."

how about if i just go watch depp playing thompson instead of being amused by a throwaway bit in the middle of three hour plus product? how does that make the film better?

and if you really believe that one can't have an opinion on something without seeing it, this blog would be blank. and if you believe it, tell me you're going to go see every film ever released just in case you're missing a potential masterpiece like NORBIT.

my beef is not wholly with content, but context.
and after suffering thru FLASHDANCE TOP GUN COYOTE UGLY ARMAGEDDON, i've given mr. bruckheimer far too much time and benefit of the doubt.

one chocolate enema to go!

comment #56

jeffmcm says ...

You're missing the point. A film is made of a lot of parts and even in the midst of a lot of noisy junk, there will be bits and pieces that are worth seeing and appreciating.

I did see Norbit.

comment #57

jeffmcm says ...

I guess my point is, if you're serious about understanding film and movies, you need to experience and understand the full range of movies - including the popular ones.

comment #58

Josh Massey says ...

I had a film professor who bragged about having never seen a Sylvester Stallone film. Immediately, I lost a little interest in what he had to say. I mean, I don't think his lack of experience with Tango and Cash or Over the Top really hurt his outlook, but how about Best Picture winner Rocky?

I don't think you can consider yourself an expert on something without experiencing a wide range of what it has to offer.

comment #59

christian says ...

i've never bragged about not seeing all the crap of hollywood. i write about film, teach film, make film. i've seen every godzilla film ever made more than twice. i obviously championed GRINDHOUSE. but suddenly, because i don't want to see another bloated disney bruckheimer movie product, i'm missing out on the cultural dynamic. or worse, not seeing this could lead me to not seeing EVAN ALMIGHTY or NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM or fill in the blank.

at least the ad men are getting their money's worth. and on this, jeff is right: if you don't go see their crap you're treated like a film philistine. i stand cursed.

comment #60

cjKennedy says ...

There's something to be said for breadth of knowledge of a subject, but at what point do you sacrifice depth? There are loads of great movies, many made before my lifetime, and try as I might I probably won't ever get ot them all before I kick the bucket. With that in mind, every minute I waste watching a Bruckheimer movie is a potential lost opportunity to see a Renoir or an Ophuls or a Godard or a Pabst or a Ford.

It's good to mix it up and cleanse the palate once in a while with something light, but I'm sure I could live a full and happy life without ever seeing another Bruckheimer movie. I'd rather see a movie I adore one more time or at least see movie by someone I'm unfamiliar with.

Doest that stop me from being an expert? Fine.

comment #61

christian says ...

what cj said. three plus hours plus 15 dollars is much more than i'm willing to give up to the disneybruckheimer corps just so i can hopefully opine that the third POTC might be better than the unmemorable first. it's like asking me to go revisit BEVERLY HILLS COP 3. haven't i already paid my dues to mr. b?

i said GOOD DAY SIR!

comment #62

Rich S. says ...

That's a good quote. But you do know that the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was bankrolled by Quaker Oats, to kick off its line of Willy Wonka candy, right?

comment #63

Mgmax says ...

"There's something to be said for breadth of knowledge of a subject, but at what point do you sacrifice depth? ...every minute I waste watching a Bruckheimer movie is a potential lost opportunity to see a Renoir or an Ophuls or a Godard or a Pabst or a Ford."

Instead of seeing POTC3AWE, I went to Cinevent and saw all of this:

http://tinyurl.com/24j5zz

Which of us really came out knowing more about the movies (and had a better time), do you suppose? Was I really a fool to trade Borzage and Christensen for Verbinski?

comment #64

christian says ...

yes i did know that. but i never considered quaker oats to have quite the same monolithic cultural vicegrip as disney if that is what you're gettin' at...

on the flip side, we see what happens when another monolith pumps out its own new version of wonka...

comment #65

christian says ...

and of course, i would actually drive 100 miles and pay 20 dollars to see the preview version of SMOKEY IS THE BANDIT with gleason playing both parts. being a film snob and all.

comment #66

jeffmcm says ...

So Christian and CJKennedy, the obvious next question is: why aren't you watching a Mizoguchi film right now, instead of being here insisting on how much you hate this one series of films?

comment #67

christian says ...

is it that obvious jeff? really? it sounds like a rather simple headed question to me. either i go see POTC and dig it or i shutup because i'm such a snob? you're smarter than that.

you made the point that POTC has a sociological value in its content - one of the focus in my writing and teaching is cultural context which allows me to have an informed opinion on the globalization and homogenization of film. not to mention i luv movies -- that's why i care.

so by your own implication, shouldn't you go read a blog where everybody has seen and loved POTC?

comment #68

cjKennedy says ...

Mgmax. Wait, are you arguing with me or agreeing with me?

Jeffmcm. That's kind of a retarded question and I'm pretty sure you know it. I'm not watching any movies right now. It's not something I do 24 hours a day which is probably I'll never see all the good ones. Tonight when I go home, I'm going to watch a Marilyn Monroe. It's not an art film, but it's a part of a greater appreciation of an icon of American cinema.

I make no claims to watching all classics all the time. I went to see Bug this weekend among other things. Interesting? Yes. A classic? Probably not.

Look, I've gladly ceded the moral high ground over the fact that I think Bruckheimer is a waste of time. I'm not claiming this makes me a better person and I'm not even claiming this is the right way to be for everyone. I even copped to being irrational about it, but when someone else turns around and suggests I'm somehow lacking because I'm not interested in Pirates 3...well that's just crazy talk.

comment #69

christian says ...

speaking of crazy talk, (ripped from cinematical) here's those heart and soul people clearly not interested in cash and carry movies:

Sony opened Spider-Man 3 on a Tuesday in some territories overseas and announced a "six-day opening record" of $232 million. Disney announced its "six-day opening record" of $251 for Pirates. And both have been grumbling and bickering back and forth ever since. "While there may or may not be other territories that opened prior to Wednesday, we believe that as more day-and-date releases enter the market, there should be a consistent standard in international box office reporting. This issue is larger than an opening-week box office statistic."

pirates indeed.

comment #70

jeffmcm says ...

I never said I loved POTC.

comment #71

christian says ...

and i never said i loved mizoguchi.

comment #72

Mgmax says ...

"Mgmax. Wait, are you arguing with me or agreeing with me?"

Agreeing. I have no problem with being moderately clued in to pop culture but I also feel no obligation to wallow in it; one Pirates movie was enough to give me the idea, thank you very much, much more idea than 99% of America has about Frank Borzage, Laurel and Hardy or lots of other things I saw this weekend.

And I did just watch Kobayashi's Hara-Kiri last week, is that close enough to Mizoguchi?

comment #73

cjKennedy says ...

Harakiri and Samurai Rebellion are great. Speaking of Kobayashi and the long list of movies I haven't seen but want to: have you seen Human Condition?

And speaking of complete wastes of time that I'm oddly drawn to anyway, I'm having this urge to see Ghost Rider. Anyone who has seen it care to talk me out of it?

comment #74

christian says ...

i've seen GODZILLA'S REVENGE about 20 times but never THE HUMAN CONDITION. clearly i lack breadth.

comment #75

jeffmcm says ...

Ghost Rider is substantially more vacuous than Pirates.

comment #76

cjKennedy says ...

Is there a Godzilla where he fights a flaming, motorcycle riding skeleton? That's the one I want to see right now. As always, jet packs and laser toting monkeys would be a bonus optional.

Perhaps with my monkey fixation, I really should see Pirates 3 since I'm led to believe there is some top shelf monkey action in it.

comment #77

christian says ...

you should stick to the best pirate monkey movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMuScu9OpfA

comment #78

cjKennedy says ...

"Ghost Rider is substantially more vacuous than Pirates."

It's not lack of substance that I fear, though it's definitely a cudgel I will use to beat the shit out of something I already don't like.

Is there some solid Nic Cage scenery chewing? That would almost be worth 90 minutes of my life. Hell, it's almost enough to get me through something like Con Air.

Of course, if that's what I want maybe I should finally break down and rent Wicker Man. See I'm laughing just thinking about it and I haven't even seen it before.

comment #79

cjKennedy says ...

Thank you Christian, I think I'm sated for now.

"Hey, would ya like to buy a monkey?" has gotta be right up there with "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night" as far as your classic movie quotes go, doesn't it?

comment #80

jeffmcm says ...

If you want crazy Nicolas Cage acting, Wicker Man has it all over Ghost Rider - remember that Cage isn't even _in_ half of Ghost Rider when his CGI doppelganger takes over.

comment #81

Mgmax says ...

"have you seen Human Condition?"

No, but the first thing I did after watching Harakiri was look to see if the old Image DVD was still available. Nope, out of print and up to almost $100-- for part 1 of 3.

And where's my widescreen DVD of An Actor's Revenge, dammit?

"It's not lack of substance that I fear"

Same here. So many of today's big movies are like being beaten with a baseball bat. A Dolbyville Slugger. Today's movies are like Dwight MacDonald's description of Ben-Hur, that it's like watching a freight train go by for four hours, except now they all ride over your head.

comment #82

Mgmax says ...

"Is there a Godzilla where he fights a flaming, motorcycle riding skeleton? That's the one I want to see right now. As always, jet packs and laser toting monkeys would be a bonus optional."

See, there really was an audience for the King Kong sequels Peter Jackson proposed as an April Fool's joke, Kong battling Nazis with machine gun nests on each shoulder. Yeah! Why the hell ISN'T that coming out this summer, huh?

comment #83

cjKennedy says ...

Failure to Launch is on friggin HD-DVD and Human Condition is OOP. That's sad.

There's a video store here that claims to have them on DVD but they'll probably demand the rights to my first born child before they rent them to me.

Post a Comment