Letters to the Editor
-
I don't care how bad it is, it has Johnny Depp in it...
And Stephanie, that alone is a reason to see it.
Mess, no mess, I don't care a whit.
And yes, I'm so loyal I even saw the Libertine...
A True Depp Fan
-
Here be spoilers.
The filmmakers do include a scene that shows us what happens to the dog.
It appears at the tail end of the movie, after the credits.
-
Arrgh. Remember Moonlighting, Mateys!
Of course the audience wants Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley to be together in this movie. Some of us, however, understand that it would ruin the movie.
-
stop the presses, SZ doesn't like a Disney movie
As if we couldn't have predicted this review.
Too bad the weekend box office will crush her whiny, pathetic pointless point.
-
Ok, Stephanie...enough with the over-exaggeration
I know you have to be "unique" as a critic and all but please stop blowing the movies flaws out of proportion. You really remind me of that Simpsons episode when Homer was a food critic and had to pooh-pooh everything he ate.
Yes, the dialogue could have been more but the plot did exist, the dog did have a part, and the movie was really well done. The costumes, the acting (I'll give you Orlando Bloom wasn't as good as he could be), and the story were great. It was fast paced and very fun.
It was a solid movie and I recommend it to all for a very entertaining time.
-
Stephanie completely blew it about the prison dog.
I want to emphasize this on top of Anonymous's spoiler (it's not, really, since it's the merest loose thread that gets tied up).
Anyone who watched the first POTC, and anyone who watches movies for a living, should have stuck around for the credits to see if there was going to be an Easter egg. The very thing that Stephanie complained about the lack of is in the movie, in fact, and now her review stands as a testimonial to her lazy viewing.
She also got Barbossa's name wrong in her review of the first POTC.
A little more attention, please, Steph.
-
Um . . .
Let me preface this by saying that I love trashy summer movies as much as the next guy; I dug "The Devil Wears Prada," "Cars," and "Mission: Impossible 3" -- as well as the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. On the other hand, there's a difference between being unpretentious and being lobotomized.
If anything, Stephanie Zacharek was too easy on "Dead Man's Chest." This was one of the dreariest moviegoing experiences of my life. The movie is plodding and dull, the action sequences are difficult to follow . . . the characters' motives are impossible to decipher . . . and even the CGI effects look phony (the surfaces are way too glossy; you know what I'm talking about). But listing the things I didn't like about the movie isn't even the right approach; the better question is: what's to like?
Yes, Johnny Depp is in the movie. And Keira Knightley. And pirates. Yes, everybody loves Johnny Depp, and Keira Knightley, and pirates. I agree! I like all of those things too! But the actors are no more engaging and alive than video game characters here; the movie is drab and joyless from start to finish.
Defending a crass, soulless, depressing movie like "Dead Man's Chest" (or any of the last three "Star Wars" films) seems like a waste of energy.
And by the way, I don't blame Zacharek for failing to miss the dog stuff after the closing credits; I couldn't wait to get out of the theater either.
-
Great Ride --- er, movie
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie! I was a bit put off by the negative reviews but went anyway. It was great fun. The first movie that made me feel the same way as when I go to Disneyland. Yeah. I love going to Disneyland. So what. Fun is fun and this movie is fun if you are not too pretentious to like that sort of thing. I cannot wait to see the end next summer! Of course movies can be so much more, but sometimes I just want to enjoy three hours on a ride and this was it. Reviewers need to keep in mind that not all movies are about anything but having fun. Everyone should just have fun sometimes and fun is sometimes stupid but so what. A great reviewer can understand this and say as much. A narrow-mnded reviewer thinks every movie should be worthy of study in film school. For everyone who works all week and wants to blow three hours having fun on Friday night those reviews are worthless. I love that Salon actually reviews indie's that may not get reviewed elsewhere but I would love it even more if Zacharek could appreciate good crap when he sees it, because sometimes good crap is really, really good crap. Sometimes that's what even thinking people want. "None stop excitement" as Zacharek puts it is wonderful in its own right when it keeps you engaged. So maybe if I were a film critic I would be bored by it, but as a guy who works all week that is sometimes all I want. I loved it. If you can be twelve or want to be twelve for three hours, this movie is for you. If your are just too grown up for that sort of thing, skip it. But, it achieves its aims and anyone trying to consider whether they should see it, must consider that because some movies that aim there fail and this one does not.
-
SZ is right: this movie did not provide the answer to life's burning issues
It was merely highly entertaining, very funny, and an overall enjoyable experience. It was worth the $7 and 2 1/2 hours. And I'm looking forward to being entertained next summer when the third installment is released.
A question for Salon's editors: why do you have such a dreary, humorless, pessimistic, prig-with-a-stick-up-her-ass writing movie reviews, anyway? Can't squeeze one more writer onto the Broadsheet staff?
-
day 1: 55 million
Good thing this overstuffed sequel is no treasure, otherwise it might have some earned serious box office numbers on its first day. Gosh, if it could only manage to sparkle. Sigh.
-
the triangle
Did we really need Elizabeth to fall for Jack Sparrow? Was that necessary? It seemed completely tacked on, and it also detracted from the character quite a bit. Elizabeth is interesting because she's strong and willful. Now we're left to wonder if she just wants to date a bad boy.