Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
"All this vitriol" will be gone approximately one week from the film's release. This isn't going to spark the endless outrage of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. It sounds like this film will just take its lumps and be forgotten.
But what do I know, I'm not even planning to see it in theaters.
I almost literally walked out of Tree of Life and into Pirates 4 yesterday. The two experiences had pretty much no thing to do with one another.
And that's where I'm baffled Damon. In Crystal Skulls and Tron and so many of these big blockbuster abortions, there are just wide swaths of shit that just make no sense, that break down with even a second thought. A few holes here and there aside, Pirates comes nowhere close to that level of ridiculousness. I think a lot of reviewers have engorged the dreadful amount of exposition in their minds. Yes, the dialogue is not as chewy in the first act as it has been in the past, but to hear most of the reviews describe these fucking painful stretches of useless expostion... it's mostly bullshit. Things like Blackbeards curse are explained in a sentence or two, accepted as part of his current mythos, and the movie moves on. Barbarossa has a nice couple of perfectly sensible lines, and we immediately have more than enough justification why he's working with the crown. Watching him incrementally break down back into a full on pirate across the movie was all the more fun because of it.
And again, with the dumptruck-filling tons of due respect to Nordling and others with similar complaints, "You can literally see the deadness behind the actor's eyes as they go through their dialogue not giving a shit." ...is ridiculous. Just pure nonsense. Rush was as fired up as he was in the first film, McShane was chewing scenery with the best of them, and while Depp didn't have the kind of razor sharp dialogue that made the first film a classic, he was FAR more energized than he was in the last two dreadful circle-jerks.
A review is coming, so I'll leave it there for now. And yes, while there are some things I'll 100% defend as solidly "good," there is much of the film that leaves plenty to be desired. But it's not an outright embarrassment, it's not a disaster, and using it as the center-point of some grand statement about the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood is pushing it too far. Even if you shove it fully on the "bad" side of the spectrum, it pales in comparison to half a dozen other abominations of the last year or two.
EDIT: Then again, I'm the guy who likes 3D. Not expecting to ever be anyone's go-to critic.
I guess the plotting is no better or worse than any number of recent films, but I think the capper is the execution, as Rob Marshall's direction is listless, and he has no great eye or rhythm for action.
Quote:
I almost literally walked out of Tree of Life and into Pirates 4 yesterday. The two experiences had pretty much no thing to do with one another.
And that's where I'm baffled Damon. In Crystal Skulls and Tron and so many of these big blockbuster abortions, there are just wide swaths of shit that just make no sense, that break down with even a second thought. A few holes here and there aside, Pirates comes nowhere close to that level of ridiculousness. I think a lot of reviewers have engorged the dreadful amount of exposition in their minds. Yes, the dialogue is not as chewy in the first act as it has been in the past, but to hear most of the reviews describe these fucking painful stretches of useless expostion... it's mostly bullshit. Things like Blackbeards curse are explained in a sentence or two, accepted as part of his current mythos, and the movie moves on. Barbarossa has a nice couple of perfectly sensible lines, and we immediately have more than enough justification why he's working with the crown. Watching him incrementally break down back into a full on pirate across the movie was all the more fun because of it.
And again, with the dumptruck-filling tons of due respect to Nordling and others with similar complaints, "You can literally see the deadness behind the actor's eyes as they go through their dialogue not giving a shit." ...is ridiculous. Just pure nonsense. Rush was as fired up as he was in the first film, McShane was chewing scenery with the best of them, and while Depp didn't have the kind of razor sharp dialogue that made the first film a classic, he was FAR more energized than he was in the last two dreadful circle-jerks.
A review is coming, so I'll leave it there for now. And yes, while there are some things I'll 100% defend as solidly "good," there is much of the film that leaves plenty to be desired. But it's not an outright embarrassment, it's not a disaster, and using it as the center-point of some grand statement about the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood is pushing it too far. Even if you shove it fully on the "bad" side of the spectrum, it pales in comparison to half a dozen other abominations of the last year or two.
EDIT: Then again, I'm the guy who likes 3D. Not expecting to ever be anyone's go-to critic.
Yeah, but...how was TREE OF LIFE, Renn? I could give a shit about the variability of critical response towards Pirates of the Caribbean 4.
Totally fair, D. I never found it to be remotely incompetent, but there's no particular inspiration to his camera. And while I had fun, I'll always regret that Verbinski didn't bring keen eye to it, and that Elliot and Rossio seem to have lost their grip on the wit that made the first great. Had those two elements been up to snuff, I think the cast and the stripped-down story would have made a far better immediate follow-up than 2 & 3.
That said, I think Wolski shot a good looking movie that wasn't perhaps as vivid as most ocean/jungle movies, but was more interested in playing to the natural architecture of the locations, rather than just bright, green-ass trees!
Quote:
Yeah, but...how was TREE OF LIFE, Renn? I could give a shit about the variability of critical response towards Pirates of the Caribbean 4.
Worry not, when there's a review and some more conversation to dive into with a post-release thread, you'll find my thoughts there (*spoiler* I loved it, but I'm all about me some Malick).
For now though, forgive me for talking Pirates in the Pirates thread.
I guess the plotting is no better or worse than any number of recent films, but I think the capper is the execution, as Rob Marshall's direction is listless, and he has no great eye or rhythm for action.
This is the capper. There are some inventive setups and sequences in this movie where I thought, oh, this is a clever and fun idea - I especially loved Sparrow boomeranging himself from one tree to the other. As a concept. In execution, these things play out unbearably slow and labored. Rob Marshall doesn't have it in him to direct, especially not some Big Grand Adventure. I mean, ferocious mermaids attacking pirates should be exciting, right? So the design they went with in that sequence is "Obvious CGI topless women with fish bottoms and vampire teeth." OH HOW FAR YOUR IMAGINATION STRETCHES, VISIONARY ROB MARSHALL.
And again, these movies are played as light, comedic adventures, and the earlier films have a lot of laughs. This one is just NOT FUNNY AT ALL. I want to believe we've lost our perspective on these things, Renn (I, too, was harsh on Fast Five and Tron Legacy and other blockbusters essentially being "non-movies") but I don't know if that passes the smell test: not only did this movie make me actively miserable, but the audience I saw it with mostly reacted like they were being held captive.
Based on comments, you'd think Rob Marshall had completely botched the film with his directing; that's not the case. I credited early reviews with lowering my expectations, and that was mostly why. People talk of Marshall's work on Pirates 4 as an embarrassment. No, it's just very basic and workman-like. He certainly doesn't have the spark Verbinski did, but he does okay.
I find myself in complete agreement with Renn. There are things I will defend as good, things I will solidly say are bad, and a whole lot of in between. But a few hyperbolic comments, like the "deadness in the actors' eyes" comment that Renn quoted, are utter horseshit. Anyone who says Depp looks bored here is bringing their own feelings into the film. Go back and watch Curse of the Black Pearl again. It's very much the same sort of performance, with the same energy brought to it. The material just isn't as good.
I don't necessarily think Depp's loafing here as much as playing the skimpy character he's been given. We've already learned everything we need to know about Capt. Jack. Most of this movie functions as a callback to that knowledge, with the predictable blockbustery notion that he once fell in love with Penelope Cruz and is scared of commitment.
But its also the downtime of the character that comes into play as well. Verbinski's camera kept moving, there was so much activity in those earlier Pirates movies that Sparrow could do his shtick and still be a part of the movie, part of the world, the background, what have you. Here, there are extended camera setups with NOTHING happening, no interesting visual elements, no forwarding of story, and the camera sits in place as Sparrow darts around, with his usual wacky one-liners and jokes. It's as if some Disney exec said, "We're paying this guy $30 million or something, don't leave him out of a SINGLE shot." Because of this, the Jack Sparrow character just becomes so so so so much more grating than he's ever been.
I really hated this, and I had absolutely no axe to grind with Depp and co.
I'm not seeing any surprises in what Damon or Gabe point out- those same flaws were in Dead Man's Chest and At World's End. It was forgiven in Dead Man's Chest because it was suggesting the 3rd movie would resolve everything and fill in the holes. Sadly, At World's End was the biggest aimless whimper the franchise could have possibly delivered (the Kraken just washes up on a beach?!). There have been so many pointless (in the terms of nobody actually gets stabbed and it matters) swordfights, ship vs. ship battles that go on for the sake of trying to get you to drool over CGI, and plot cycling under the guise of it's-really-just-pirate-doublecrossing that you can change the characters around all you want, but the end result will still be the same. Bottom line is that you're either there because you like Depp or are going along with someone who does- the camera and story focuses on him for a reason even when there's nothing really happening (like the whole first hour of At World's End).
If Depp wasn't involved and box office wasn't virtually guaranteed from his inclusion, these would be direct to video sequels like a lot of Disney's catalogue.
It's not a criticism anyone in this thread has really put forth, but co-writer/"hack" Terry Rossio weighed in over at the (always worth reading) Wordplayer.com forums about what he sees as an inaccurate assertion by a number of critics that the movie is too hard to follow. Just reprinting his post in case anyone finds it of interest:
There is definitely something strange going on with Pirates with a large number of reviews that are both highly venomous and massively inaccurate.
As with most people, I'm sanguine of critical reviews that nail weak points in a plot, or point out where filmmaking quality has fallen short, etc.
But -- to name just one example -- many reviews of On Stranger Tides go out of their way to complain that the plot of the film is complex, impossible to follow, confusing, etc.
Between you and me, the plot of the film is so simple and straightforward, a child could follow it. In fact, one might complain it borders on being a children's film, in the vein of, say, Swiss Family Robinson or Around the World in 80 Days. That's not a bad thing, I believe; part of it is the nature of a quest story -- three groups set out in a race to find the Fountain of Youth. There is a straightforward nature to that kind of tale that one can not escape.
Beyond my own opinion, and the belief of the filmmakers, I was present at one of those preview screenings where they ask 400 movie goers directly, did you understand the story? Where there any parts of the story you didn't understand? There wasn't anything that the audience didn't get. (Which is to be expected when you have such a simple plot -- if you can manage to make your way into a theater, you can understand the idea that everyone's headed to the Fountain of Youth, that you need to bring with you certain items, and that each person on the quest has a slightly different reason for going.)
Also -- beyond that -- we've now heard from normal filmgoers (fans mostly, posting on message boards) who are shaking their heads, saying the film is essentially simple, straightforward, and fun -- what's all this about complexity?
So here we have a movie that (properly) could be criticized for being, if anything, too simple, that objectively has fewer story moves than an average episode of MASH, that anyone who sees it gets it with ease --
And still, there is a decent segment of movie *reviewers*, around 25%, who go out of their way to put forth, quite strongly, the conviction that the film is overly complex, inherently so, too difficult for them to follow.
Weird.
It's a real mystery to me. It must have a source. Something about these films in particular that make critics check out, or get angry, or both, and then get lazy with their own writing ... or ... I don't know ...
Anyone who goes to see the film this weekend, I'm interested in that aspect ...
Overly complex? Convoluted? Difficult to understand?
Really?
What's funny is that you can tell from the post that Rossio thinks the film is too simple.
Also, Rossio's a hack? Not crunching on you, FatherDude, as I've seen it a million places online. I know the interwebs hate Shrek, but it was loved by bunches and bunches of people, critics and audiences alike. Beyond that, he co-wrote Aladdin, The Mask of Zorro, and Curse of the Black Pearl. All studio films, definitely, but tons of fun.
The quotes were meant to denote sarcasm. I've seen Elliot and Rossio castigated as hacks in more than one review, and it's never an accusation that's backed up, as if their body of work is supposed to make it self-evident. (It isn't.)
I haven't seen OST, but a similar thing happened with DMC. Tons of critics complained about how overly convoluted and confusing that film was, when in reality the plotting is fairly clever and largely devoid of holes. The story of that film should only be challenging to those holding the opinion that no summer movie should feature a plot more complex than, say, TWISTER. To this day, I'm an admirer of DMC -- the script and the film. Too bad nothing it set up was paid off properly in AWE. (For which I blame not Elliott, Rossio or Verbinski, but instead the super-rushed production schedule.)
With all that said, I was going to hit the theater for OST. Now, after all that's been said and written, I'm leaning toward Netflix.
Let none of us forget that the AWE DVD came with a handy-dandy insert explaining the plot!
I haven't really read the reviews for the new movie (other than ones from the handful of critics I usually read), but what I'm betting is that they've chosen to articulate their frustration with the 'complex plot' in a simplistic way instead of calling out what the real issue is. If this is anything like AWE, it's not that the plot is complex. It's that they take a plot, supposedly so simple that a child could understand it, and tell it in a convoluted way that has no real meaning. It's just complication for the sake of it. Intentionally telling a story in a convoluted way can be fun. But if it's not, then it's just annoying and a target for scorn. That's what AWE felt like.
On the business end of things, who stands to lose more: producer, director or star?
On the business end of things, who stands to lose more: producer, director or star?
Gotta be director, right?
Here's how the film begins. There's the set up of the finding of the Fountain of Youth where a bunch of anonymous people give exposition.
Then the film cuts to the "fun" sequence where Jack Sparrow pretends to be a judge where he gets to wear a wig and judge outfit. To which there are no stakes, etc. This then leads to...
A scene where a character doles out exposition for over a minute or two as the characters sit in the back of a carriage. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, We're treated to a scene where endless exposition is doled out in the least interesting setting ever. But I guess it's supposed to lead to a switch, which then puts Sparrow in custody, where he then is treated to...
ANOTHER THREE MINUTES OF SOLID EXPOSITION WHERE ALMOST EVERYONE IS SITTING. This one is a little more fun because Richard Griffiths goes so far over the top, but mostly what it does is introduces that Geofrey Rush is back.
This then leads to a chase sequence, which Jeremy I think correctly called "done at half speed" which ends with Sparrow going to a bar where Keith Richards gives him another minute or so of exposition, which then leads to him meeting someone who's doubling him, which then leads to even more exposition. This is the opening reel of the movie.
Exposition in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it can set up a narrative and reveal character. But here we know the characters, and nothing about the exposition informs so much as it creates the narrative that isn't really on screen. To wit, Sparrow is suposedly in love with Penelope Cruz. But he has to talk about it because they have no chemistry on screen. At no point did I know where any of the three competing groups were in their search, and when I did see where they were the lags never made much sense, nor did their plans.
Blackbeard is introduced by having magical powers which he then never uses again, And some say this is because he can only use them on the boat, but if that's the case, if he has the power to catch things with ropes while on his boat, then the Mermaid sequence is even stupider than suspected, or then if he's got zombies, why doesn't he use them more? The cart being put before the horse is the MO of this entire movie, so that Sparrow has to jump off of a really high cliff is set up with a scene that goes nowhere, and tells us too much without consequences.
Then there's the action, which is all pretty half baked. Like the cliff jumping, or the escape sequence, which is incoherently staged. When it ends with the tie-up, it felt like the only way that would work is if all the Spaniards were S&M freaks and let themselves be tied up. And then the end where you have two older English gentlemen trading parries while about a dozen extras trade sword swings in the background, and none of it adds up to much - very exciting.
Why did they only get one tear from the mermaid when her face was wet? Why did the Spaniards steal the cups and take them to the one place they could be used if there plan was not to use them? How could anyone seriously know how to use the cups that require such elaborate means to make the fountain of youth work? Etc. etc. All narratives exist to tell a story, but if the machinations of that narrative become self evident that they exist solely to get to the next set piece, it usually considered bad writing. This is another in a long line of Hollywood films that is bloated (seriously, why all the elaborate opening machinations, when you can simply put a Pirate on a boat searching for X?), character-free nonsense that lacks any sort of visual panache. I don't get being forgiving of this sort of bad movie-making.
So Marshall adopted the George Lucas Prequel school of Directing
Sounds like Tron Legacy.
Sounds like Tron Legacy.
It's shaping up as a pretty cynical, disappointing year as far blockbusters go so far.
Oh come on. I'll admit we've hit a rough patch, but THOR and FAST FIVE were pretty good.
The OST commercial's playing on tv right now as I read this thread. Says it's the "BEST PIRATES EVER". So what do you guys know?
Sounds like Tron Legacy.
It's really, really not. Not the same kind of problems, not the same level of problems.
Oh come on. I'll admit we've hit a rough patch, but THOR and FAST FIVE were pretty good.
Eh, I reckon I'm just getting old.
I just cannot begin to muster any kind of enthusiasm for yet another superhero movie that looks the same as the last few Marvel superhero films and follows an identical story structure, the fifth film in a franchise that made me feel like I had a head injury after watching the first one a decade ago and now the fourth in a pirate franchise that seems to simply exist to keep Johnny Depp away from doing interesting work.
Honestly, it's a struggle to get excited about 90% of Hollywood blockbusters these days. I already know how most of them will look and play out before they're god-damned finished these days. The things that get me most excited about the movies - great stories about characters I care about that engage my brain as much as my emotions - simply aren't their priority and so simply don't deliver in those regards and what they do seem to believe they prioritise - having a fun night out at the movies - they don't deliver on these days either.
I'm tired of being served refried hamburger and being expected to think of it as fois gras, I'm tired of ignoring the elephant in the room that we all have to qualify our expectations because we all know that blockbusters are mostly glossy expensive forgettable shit designed to suck the money out of your wallet on the opening weekend and be forgotten less than five minutes after you leave the theatre.
I'm tired of no substance and more importantly no enjoyment.
I can't pretend to care about a film more than the people behind it seemed to any more and I'm tired of being treated like a dribbling moron.
It's really, really not. Not the same kind of problems, not the same level of problems.
It's just what I got from Damon's write-up that was quoted above. Inconsistent magical powers, lots of dull exposition, half-baked action sequences...
Honestly, it's a struggle to get excited about 90% of Hollywood blockbusters these days. I already know how most of them will look and play out before they're god-damned finished these days. The things that get me most excited about the movies - great stories about characters I care about that engage my brain as much as my emotions - simply aren't their priority and so simply don't deliver in those regards and what they do seem to believe they prioritise - having a fun night out at the movies - they don't deliver on these days either.
I'm tired of being served refried hamburger and being expected to think of it as fois gras, I'm tired of ignoring the elephant in the room that we all have to qualify our expectations because we all know that blockbusters are mostly glossy expensive forgettable shit designed to suck the money out of your wallet on the opening weekend and be forgotten less than five minutes after you leave the theatre.
I'm tired of no substance and more importantly no enjoyment.
I can't pretend to care about a film more than the people behind it seemed to any more and I'm tired of being treated like a dribbling moron.
You're a very thoughtful guy, truly, but at the end of the day, we're not exactly in thrall to these things. Sure, there's going to be a lot of Pirates marketing to wade through for a couple weeks, but it's no worse than the other thousands of commercials hitting me on a daily basis in NYC, and I've gotten good at drowning out the white noise. You can demand a higher class of escapist entertainment all you want, but the aims of Pirates of the Caribbean 4 are wildly different from the aims of Tree of Life or whatever. If the loud spectacle coming out this week isn't your cup of tea, wait one week and there will absolutely be another to see (or two, in next week's case). The thing with Pirates 4 is that they are in no way hiding exactly what kind of movie this is. If you didn't like the last couple, you won't like this one either, and there's no reason to expect otherwise. And if you don't like loud spectacles, then why follow the critical/fan reaction to loud spectacles, especially when there's no shortage of decent alternatives hitting theaters, like the aforementioned Malick, Bridesmaids, or all sorts of other counter-programming that sneaks out every summer?
This isn't an apologia for terrible cinema. It seems clear OST is nothing but a bullshit delivery system. But that's just it: it's clear. If I go see it and hate it, it's my own fault. And the end result there is pretty low stakes. I'll have some fun laughing about how bad it was and forget all about it in a week. If I get especially burned, maybe I skip out on the next one that comes down the pike.
You're a very thoughtful guy, truly, but at the end of the day, we're not exactly in thrall to these things. Sure, there's going to be a lot of Pirates marketing to wade through for a couple weeks, but it's no worse than the other thousands of commercials hitting me on a daily basis in NYC, and I've gotten good at drowning out the white noise. You can demand a higher class of escapist entertainment all you want, but the aims of Pirates of the Caribbean 4 are wildly different from the aims of Tree of Life or whatever. If the loud spectacle coming out this week isn't your cup of tea, wait one week and there will absolutely be another to see (or two, in next week's case). The thing with Pirates 4 is that they are in no way hiding exactly what kind of movie this is. If you didn't like the last couple, you won't like this one either, and there's no reason to expect otherwise. And if you don't like loud spectacles, then why follow the critical/fan reaction to loud spectacles, especially when there's no shortage of decent alternatives hitting theaters, like the aforementioned Malick, Bridesmaids, or all sorts of other counter-programming that sneaks out every summer?
This isn't an apologia for terrible cinema. It seems clear OST is nothing but a bullshit delivery system. But that's just it: it's clear. If I go see it and hate it, it's my own fault. And the end result there is pretty low stakes. I'll have some fun laughing about how bad it was and forget all about it in a week. If I get especially burned, maybe I skip out on the next one that comes down the pike.
All true and well said - that's been very much my approach the last decade or more as well. I guess I may be moving into a new phase of movie geekery perhaps where I see very few spectacle blockbusters. I actually feel big budget movies seem to becoming more cynical and bland lately along with my own changes in taste - if the majority of blockbusters released each year were on par with the original POTC for quality rather than Transformers 2 we wouldn't be having this conversation. I just hate being made to feel a fool and with films this obviously, stupidly not fun I can't see Hollywood thinking I'm anything but.
All true and well said - that's been very much my approach the last decade or more as well. I guess I may be moving into a new phase of movie geekery perhaps where I see very few spectacle blockbusters. I actually feel big budget movies seem to becoming more cynical and bland lately along with my own changes in taste - if the majority of blockbusters released each year were on par with the original POTC for quality rather than Transformers 2 we wouldn't be having this conversation. I just hate being made to feel a fool and with films this obviously, stupidly not fun I can't see Hollywood thinking I'm anything but.
A summer blockbuster is hard to get right. I haven't seen the film yet, but I do think it's unfair to blame Hollywood, the executives or anyone for thinking you're a moron. People accuse them of cynically going through the paces, but I doubt they weren't at least trying to create a truly fun spectacle... they just weren't up to the task.
A summer blockbuster is hard to get right. I haven't seen the film yet, but I do think it's unfair to blame Hollywood, the executives or anyone for thinking you're a moron. People accuse them of cynically going through the paces, but I doubt they weren't at least trying to create a truly fun spectacle... they just weren't up to the task.
I've worked for and with too many executives to agree with part of your post. I have no trouble believing many of the suits in Hollywood view the moviegoing public with contempt. And I've read too many stories, as well as having directly witnessed the result of, executive meddling with scripts and production to give them the benefit of the doubt re: their view of their customers.
Now, on the crew side of things...I'm willing to believe no one (or almost no one) sets out to make a bad movie.
Now, on the crew side of things...I'm willing to believe no one (or almost no one) sets out to make a bad movie.
I wouldn't suggest for one second anyone on the creation side of the movie business aren't dedicated to doing as well as they're able to do - the money men calling the shots however pretty obviously have other priorities in mind. All I'm saying is that it seems this season those seems are a little more obvious in my estimation.
Asking Hollywood to make a blockbuster that both entertains and challenges you is a lot to ask. That requires taking a huge risk on the part of the executives, one that if it fails, will likely cost these people their jobs. So they are afraid to do it. They play it safe and stick to something they feel confident is an easy sell. This is why we live in a world of big-budget sequels and remakes. Fear, plain and simple.
The problem is really the budgets. If these things didn't cost so damn much, less would be at stake and the higher ups would be more inclined toward things that are riskier and new. But when you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, you want the risk of failure to be minimum. I get that.I don't like it, but I get it.
The sad by-product is that savvy moviegoers who won't be entertained unless challenged with fresh material will get burnt out. Our options are to shut off out brains and go along with the ride, or just forgo the ride altogether. But hey, every now and then you get an INCEPTION or SCOTT PILGRIM, so I guess you should try to really treasure those gems when they come your way.
Quote:
Worry not, when there's a review and some more conversation to dive into with a post-release thread, you'll find my thoughts there (*spoiler* I loved it, but I'm all about me some Malick).
For now though, forgive me for talking Pirates in the Pirates thread.
Renn, thanks. My post was (completely unintentionally) blunt wrt Pirates 4 and your forthcoming review. But talking about Tree of Life and Pirates is like talking about (insert hyperbolic awesome) and (insert hyperbolic lame), so I was mostly just excited to hear about the good film on the good film website. But, in a Pirates thread, it came off as douchy. My apologies.
Looking forward to both reviews. But mostly the one for the movie I most want to see.
The insane hyperbole in this thread has nothing on the insane hyperbole of Ali Arikan's review at Slant. Jesus! He makes Beaks' and Devin's reviews seem like raves.
WOW...Him going over the whole maggot thing kind of made me not hungry.
I wouldn't suggest for one second anyone on the creation side of the movie business aren't dedicated to doing as well as they're able to do - the money men calling the shots however pretty obviously have other priorities in mind. All I'm saying is that it seems this season those seems are a little more obvious in my estimation.
Henry Mencken really knew his shit, huh?
Shame to hear Cruz and Depp have no heat in this. They were pretty hot together in Blow.
I'd have watched them fuck.
They don't light the screen up or anything, but they're hardly a charisma vacuum. They have more sparks than Preacher Orlando Bloom and Mermaid Keira Knightley.
Asking Hollywood to make a blockbuster that both entertains and challenges you is a lot to ask.
Thing is, I'm not insanely fussy, I'll just take a film that really entertains me as far as blockbusters go. I think the first Pirates is a really good benchmark for what I'm talking about.
I get what you're saying Rain Dog, and I am not advocating that you should go see Pirates 4 and be happy about it. It's just that when you think about how terrified executives are about taking risks, it's a wonder we ever get any decent blockbusters at all.
Really appreciated the positivity in the review, I think people get too anxious to rip films like this a new one. It was nice to see the review judging the movie on its own merits and not setting out to carve it up.
Wow, yeah. I just got back and I quite enjoyed it. The 3D element is completely unnecessary, as always, but the film itself isn't in any way the disaster it's being made out to be by the majority of the reviewers. It's as good a sequel as you could hope for at this point in the franchise. Ian McShane was fun, Geoffrey Rush is great as always, and I thought Depp was more on point here than he was in the past two.
Plus, no Orlando Bloom, so points in the win column there.
This is awkward, but I rather liked it. I think I'll post some longer thoughts later tonight if I get a chance, but to suggest this isn't an enormous improvement on the last one is being incredibly generous to the last one. It's not great, but it's totally a bunch of pirates doing pirates things, and it sure as fuck isn't too complicated. The Rush stuff in particular is very on point. The main page reviews for this are easily the most accurate I've seen.
Finally managed to get back on a computer and do some editing. An enormous number of fixes have been made (mostly to my Frankenstein paragraphs). Many of my points actually makes sense now. Sorry about that.
This is awkward, but I rather liked it.
I'm with you. Just got back, and I'd say that any fan of this series with tempered expectation will enjoy it just fine. The popular complaints I'll echo are that Zimmer's soundtrack is like 90% re-used cues (which is a ripoff, as At World's End had an original and memorable score, I think), and that the action sequences are unengaging. It's hard to put my finger on it, and I don't hold Rob Marshall to be the Brett Ratner everyone's making him out to be, but there's definitely something about the set pieces that doesn't click like it should.
Otherwise, color me reasonably entertained. Rush remains the series' biggest draw from me, and as someone mentioned further up, he's sort of the protagonist - in fact, his story is only a mildly perverted version of Sparrow's in the first movie. I think the more self-contained, Indiana Jones, "quest" style approach works well for the franchise. There are some scenes involving Blackbeard that completely puzzle me, like when he roasted the cook (I get that it was supposed to validate his villainy or whatever, but it just doesn't play) and the "seven pistols, two bullets" deal to compel Sparrow to jump off the cliff. I'm going to give the throwaway nature of Blackbeard's voodoo powers a pass because with Barbossa ending up with the Revenge and Jack and GIbbs making off with the bottles of ships in a sack, I suspect that the magic stuff was a setup for the next sequel.
Oh, and what happened to that scene from the TV spots where Sparrow gets slapped by a mermaid? That was actually funny. And I noticed that two Royal Navy dudes from the first movie were quietly reprised only to get killed.
If you liked the first three (even AWE, ugh), you'll totally like this one. Beyond that, a great rule of thumb for summer event movies is to take what the internet says with a grain of salt. I know a lot of smart people that found a lot to enjoy in Tron, of all things. If anything, the online jihad against the Pirates franchise probably made me like this movie a lot more than I would have, because every sequence or performance bit I liked was a surprise.
I've liked everything I've seen this summer quite a bit more than I expected to, so that's nice. We'll see how long that continues. Maybe a while, as my expectations for this summer started pretty low. Ball's in your court, X Men.
