He shall be eaten still.

You're an idiot. The shot you pine for ("The filmmakers reintroduce (among other characters) the charming, scruffy jailer dog from the first movie -- only in this one, they leave him to be eaten by cannibals. Couldn't they have bothered to include just one witty shot of him scampering away? They either forgot, or they just didn't care.") is exactly the type of script-by-committee crap that ruins movies. The kind of shot that comes about only because some exec thinks not seeing the dog ultimately escape the cannibals would be too scary for kids, or one who thinks, as you do, in a script that's been read by hundreds, the filmmaker must have simply "forgotten" to save the dog.

Do you think your clever for suggesting that "witty" shot? The only reason you feel like the bit is "missing" from the film is because the same cliched shot has been used a hundred times before in other crappy movies: camera cranes out, we pan to the open sea under a starry sky, and we spot lil' Fido swimming by, keys still in his mouth; he's alright after all! Hey! Maybe he could even wink at the camera as he doggy paddles along!

It honestly blows my mind that a film critic would bemoan the lack of a hackneyed, overused device in a film. You're a disgrace.

I am a fan of SZ and of the POTC films (I look forward to numero tres). But why is SZ so obsessed with white guys? Why is "white man" automatically deemed a term of derision within Salon?

From the review: "Jack discovers he has nothing to fear from living white guys like Beckett, but needs to tread carefully around dead white guys like Davy Jones (Bill Nighy)"

The "whiteness" of Beckett and Davy Jones are about the last thing you'd notice about either of them, especially Jones who is decidedly more squid-colored than white.

And, forgive my un-PCness, for I know I'm automatically supposed to love the voodoo priestess character because she's an ethnic actor in an big budget action film, but I couldn't understand a single word of her dialogue. She looked great in the part, but I'll have to switch on the subtitles during her scenes on the DVD.

"The story is pockmarked by laziness: The filmmakers reintroduce (among other characters) the charming, scruffy jailer dog from the first movie -- only in this one, they leave him to be eaten by cannibals. Couldn't they have bothered to include just one witty shot of him scampering away? They either forgot, or they just didn't care."

hey there ms zacharek. if you had watched the movie right to the very, very end - to the end of the closing credits - you would have found that they didn't forget the dog. they had a small closing scene about him and the cannibals, er, just as they did for the monkey at the end of the first film? so...isn't it rule one in the critic's book to, like, watch the whole movie? so, really, you should have stayed and, no, i'm afraid i can't tell you how it ended. that would be spoiling it.

I'm with SZ on this one. The movie was quite fun, but it didn't engage me at all.

The first movie was perfect cotton candy with a good structure, a clear sense of direction, great characters, and superb dialogue. This one had no structure, felt like it wasn't going anywhere, did nothing new with its characters, and seemed from the outset to be trying far too hard to cash in on the catchphrases of the first movie (predictable references to "the rum being gone" went down like a lead balloon with our audience). There didn't seem to be enough real surprises either - most of the developments felt as though they were signposted about five minutes beforehand.

I think part of the problem was the lack of character development in this movie as opposed to the first one. Sure it's a fun action flick, not a character study, but any good action movie has characters who hold your interest and who develop as people by pushing themselves to new limits (think of anything from Die Hard to X-Men). One of the great aspects of Curse of the Black Pearl was the way in which Will and Elizabeth, and even Norrington and his comedy sidekicks, actually found depths within themselves that they never knew before. You need that sort of development to give the action and the comedy something to hang upon. This movie was just too superficial for its own good. At least Elizabeth did develop slightly towards the end, but a great opportunity for Will's character to grow was entirely wasted. As for characters like Norrington and Beckett, they could have been interesting, but were sadly one-dimensional.

Let me add my vote to the lovers of this movie. No, the story wasn't as strong as it could be, and it did feel a tad long... but the adventure and spectacle and kraken attacks and the sheer visual ingenuity of the crew of the Flying Dutchman put a smile on my face for almost the entire 2 1/2 hours. Everything you want in a summer movie.

Went to see this movie and walked out in the middle of it. It didn't make any sense and Johnny Depp was not in it enought nor was he as good as he was in the first one. I was very disappointed in this movie.

Since you asked:

At the very end of the credits -- and I do mean the very end, the dog is shown sitting on the throne of the headhunter god holding a bone in his mouth, being attended by the natives.

Cute, but next time I'd like a little more payback for sitting through the credit roll for a film with a 100-1 staff/actor ratio (at least that's what it felt like).

I always love Stephanie's reviews -- even the ones I don't agree with. They're literate, passionate, and well thought-out. She's a good writer, and I simply enjoy reading her thoughts each week on something she obviously loves -- movies. And when I disagree with her, I'll find myself arguing with the review mentally because she's pretty darned persuasive.

However, with that said, I was a bit skeptical of this and of a few other major critics' reviews when it came to Pirates: DMC -- mainly because they smacked of knife-sharpening. A big-budget behemoth with this much eye candy and CGI just can't be enjoyed, basically, seemed to be the message.

And seeing the movie this weekend confirmed that skepticism -- because I loved every freaking minute of it. I loved the first one, but Pirates: DMC is darker, richer, and actually all-out better movie. I can't help but feel like critics (at least 45% of 'em, according to the Tomatometer) this time around were overly nitpicky, looking too eagerly for things to dislike, etc., because of the whole franchise feel to the thing.

But this was a great movie, with something for almost everyone. This time out, there are clear motivations not just for Jack and Will, but (most thankfully) for Elizabeth, who goes from being a somewhat cliched damsel in distress, to being strong, interesting, fearless, and wonderfully played by Kiera Knightley. The story explores the darker sides of pirate and seafaring life, the vision of Davy Jones's ship is a gorgeous glimpse of hell under the sea, and there's still enough light and humor to balance out the darkness and to provide that dash of spark and adventure found in the first film as well. The inclusion of a rich array of iconic seafaring myths and icons across the ages -- from the Kraken, to the Black Spot, the homages to Captain Blood, etc. -- the writers obviously love and respect the genre they're writing for.

Further, this one actually dared -- in a way similar to "Empire" in the Star Wars trilogy -- to take the characters beyond our initial impressions, and to explore them as if they really have independent minds and hearts, as if they can discover new aspects to themselves. There's a bona fide romantic triangle in Pirates: DMC and it's breathtaking.

And yes, Bloom is bland, but bless his heart, he's not as bad as all the critics seem to imply -- A.O.Scott, for instance, suggested that Bloom is upstaged by ... well, everything, including small shrubbery, props, etc -- and that's just overly harsh. (Honestly, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be upstaged standing next to the force of nature that is Johnny Depp, anyway.)

I thought the first movie was more fun. But the second one was gorgeous, and I think ultimately may be viewed as the far better, richer movie. There's a lot more under the surface than is apparent at first glance. Loved it.

But I'll still read Stephanie.