Letters to the Editor
-
Proof once more that if Stephanie Zacharek pans it, I'll like it
Let's see...the character's motivations can't be deciphered? I had no problem whatsoever figuring out anyone's motivations, with the possible exception of Jack Sparrow. And he's meant to be a bit of a cipher, no?
The CGI looks fake? Not from my end. One commenter said everything looked "too glossy." Friend, it was all wet. QED.
I'll concede that I'm still unimpressed by Bloom's acting. But that's about the only point where we agree.
And if the plot ran off in too many directions, perhaps that's because it was leading up to the classic cliffhanger ending. I thought it played rather nicely. I mean, this is a big-budget fun movie, after all. If you're analyzing it as if it were meant to be the next arthouse classic, I think you're in the wrong profession.
In the end, SZ's review was pretty much finished for me when she made the complaint about the dog getting "eaten by cannibals." Stay to the end next time, Steph. There's a nice little gift waiting.
-
In agreement
SZ is absolutely correct. The supporters of this movie sound like pirate apologists. It feels rewritten, re-worked and relies too much on incorporating the more successful parts of the first movie. There are obvious plot patches throughout just so we are kept up to speed.
-
Let's see.
Over 19 million tickets sold in 3 days.
About $132 million box office in 3 days.
So, this film sold more tickets and made more money than any other film in history as measured by opening weekend grosses.
F*ck you "apologists." Bite me if you can't stay to the very end and get caught making up plot points. Excuse me and almost 20 million of my friends for wanting to be entertained for 150 minutes. This "overstuffed sequel" is all that and a bag of chips. The overkill of the reviewer and her sycophantic butt-kissers had all the effect of a fart on a hurricane.
Stick to reviewing indies, SZ. The rest of her fans can hole up in the art houses and discuss "film" instead of enjoying movies with the rest of us.
To paraphrase Frank Zappa, ""Definition of film critics: People who can’t write, preparing articles for people who can’t think for themselves."
-
are the cannibals lost?
I don't know what the carib indians looked like in the time of the pirates, but the face paint and the cannibal costumes look very much like something you would see on a pacific island, not in the caribbean. Does anyone know for sure?
-
A Better Movie than the Review Suggests...
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.
-
SPOILER: What happened to the dog?
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).
-
Pirates
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.