Took me long enough, but I finally managed to catch POTC2, and despite loving the first one I have to say that this just isn’t that great. Yes it has wonderful bits of Jack Sparrow-ness, but overall it is too long and too silly to really entertain.
Of course it does suffer because the story doesn’t end with this film, you’ve got to wait til film three before we have a resolution, but that isn’t the main problem. No, the problem is that there isn’t enough story to fill the 150 minutes of screen time. It is as though they wanted to put in all these “cool pirate bits” and then had to invent reasons to have them. They don’t serve the plot and so aren’t needed, and only make the film drag.
Still, there is plenty to entertain. Obviously Jack Sparrow is as entertaining as ever. And then there is Bill Nighy’s Davy Jones and his ickness. Keira Knightly I could do without however.
All in all, good in places but too long. Although the conversation over the pronunciation of Kraken was simply superb.
IMDb | Official Site | SSD | Samizdisandat | PixelSurgeon
Of course you already know that I disagree totally with you on this but that's okay. This movie and I suspect Lady in the Water, which I really liked, look to be the two big movies that everyone disagrees over this year.
The Kraken confab was especially wonderful for me because as soon as they pronounced it with a short A, my brain went off on a tangent thinking about how I'd never read the Wyndham novel The Kraken Wakes but that I'd always thought it was pronounced with a long A, although maybe that was because of Yankees (and especially Logan's dad) in Clash of the Titans pronounced it that way.
I love my brain.
Carl, I just didn't feel the desire to rewatch this like I did with the first film. It is still enjoyable and fun, but it just isn't as good as the frist one, imo of course ;)
Did you go see Lady in the water, I've noticed some bad headlines, but I haven't read any reviews, and don't intend to til I've seen the film.
NM, I'm happy for you and for your brain.
Also? I can kill you with it.
I watched some of the 4400 on Saturday (very disturbing show, a telekinetic/pathic/something baby forced a father to kill his son, then gave him a fatal heart attack and caused his other son to kill himself. And I don't think the baba was supposed to be one of the bad guys!) and Summer Glau was on it. Playing a…wait for it…it's a stretch…a paranoid schizophrenic. Hmmmm. She didn't dance though.
It made me a little sad because it was like watching River doing things that we never got to see River do. Like finding an episode you haven't watched. But there's no such thing. Sigh.
I didn't really like the Kraken debate because those characters wouldn't have been talking like that. I know that's the point. But it's stupid. Humour should flow from character.
I did like the sexy woman with black teeth, though. Challenging.
She's in 28 days later as well – I assume as a horror fan (and a fan of Cillian Murphy) you've seen it? Just think – two of your favourite pretty-peeps in one fillum.
She's also in A Cock and Bull Story, playing a runner who is a total arthouse film fanatic and she is *such* an *asshole*. Unbelievably.
I didn't fancy her especially, I just liked the idea of a female character who is presented as a very sexy woman having black teeth.
I thought 28 Days Later was fantastic, one of the few really good horror films.
Actually, Nines…I've always agreed with the "Susan hated literature" philosophy, that any sort of book (or film) well-made can be good. I'm changing my mind. As I said in my Superman post, I'm getting sick of action and genre. A film or a book really has to take itself seriously to be worth bothering with. And not to go in for cheap thrills or easy glamour, louche or otherwise.
I'm even getting sick of Quentin Tarantino. They're just action flicks, when all is said and done! Just exercises in cool! And he takes genre as far as it can go.
Ah, Mal I see you were expecting believablility from POTC, that may be it one true downfall ;) Although I'm a bit confuddled by your later comment. You say any film well-made can be good, but at the same time you're sick of action films? Surely if it is well made then it can be good?
But I'm not so sure that Superman Returns is an action film, more of a romance really.
NM, I saw part of that episode, and noticed Summer. but really couldn't watch the show. I got so bored with it when i watched an entire episode or three awhen it first started.
See Bones is starting on TV3
I meant to say, I used to think any sort of film could be good if it was well-made, but I've changed my mind.
Ah, okay that makes perfect sense. but I disagree. I don't think about what genre a film is before I go to see it. Well unless its something I know will be silly and stupid like The Fast & the Furious. I don't care what label someone else has applied, they mean nothing to me.
But the films DO follow a stereotype according to the genre they are in, even the best ones.
Even superhero films like Batman Begins and Spiderman, for all their excellent human drama and dialogue, inevitably have to include the dull and unwatchable action parts, and need to have a basically noble central character etc.
Sometimes maybe a very loose genre like comedy can have enough freedom and scope to allow a really good film, not just a film with good parts.
Most films could be identified with a genre of some kind, but some– like rom-coms or action films or even horrors– give much less freedom than biopics or drama or tragedy.
They only follow the rules that you see. If you don't think about the rules then they don't follow them.
I'm being overly simplistic here, but while yes, I know genres and genre stereotypes do exist, when I go to see a film I don't care what genre it is, or what rules it is expected to follow. All that matters is whether the film entertains me.
I do want it to entertain me…but unless it touches me and makes me think it's not going to do that.
I've come to think that the only films worth watching are films you could watch over and over again, and the same applies to books.
Ah yes, but the only way you'll discover which films are the ones that you can watch over and over again is by taking a chance on something being crap.
That's true, goddamit. But avoiding anything with an explosion in the trailer is a good bet.
Didn't Chronicles of Riddick have explosions in the trailer?
I was TOTALLY going to point that out over on Superman's Foreskin, except that I couldn't be arsed remembering anything about the Chronicles of Riddick. Except that I probably still have Mal's DVD of it. Gulp.
I'd like to take a moment to assure you (Fence) that Battlestar is safe, sound and no discs are running off to be found at much later times in totally random places.
Ahem.
You're right. It did. That's why it can't be a serious film, for all its style and originality, and is therefore not worth watching.
Of course a film CAN have an explosion and still be a serious film. Breakfast on Pluto, for instance.
No, you gave me back that Riddick DVD, Nines.
I'm revising all my opinions re. films and books. Sick of putting up with the predictable and dull stuff just because there's good stuff intermingled. No, no, no, no. No more cheap thrills or cheesiness. That's for Biggles books.
HEY! Don't be dissin the Big-meister. He taught me a lot about foreign countries (not as good as England), dirty foreigners (not as good as English people) and planes (I want a Sopwith Camel).
Glad to hear you're revising all your opinions. Cos then you can start to be like my brother – "does everything suck or is it just me?" Why not just enjoy shit? Or not. Don't overthink it.
I like stuff you can think about, and discuss, almost ad infinitum!
Me and Alan discussed the Office on the issue desk for about three weeks at one point. That's the kind of depth everything should have.
That way also to the geek/obseesive lies.
It's only geeky if you're obsessing about why Targon told King Daramor that he had never heard of the Octagon Temple. If you are analysing meaning, and theme, and irony, and all that stuff, that's hardly geeky.
Yes, it is. Nerds discuss Targon etc. Geeks are intelligent nerds.
Or maybe it's the other way round.
And you and A are totally geeky. It's not a bad thing necessarily. Accept your label with pride!
Am I the only person who fails to see how you could find that level of depth in The Office? Or who wonders why you hate "nasty, sneering humour" but find The Office doesn't fulfil these negative criteria?
Also – did you notice that you are both Mal AND Maolsheachlann on this site? It look like you're supporting Maolsheachlann's POV, but really, you're just him!
They represent different aspects of my protean personality. Or maybe I just don't notice which one I'm using.
Anyway, I don't even know what a nerd is. Somebody who doesn't have the proper interests in the correct proportions? It's another symptom of the Simon Says mentality of our supposedly liberated, individualistic society. Life without passions isn't worth living.
There's no nasty, sneering humour in the Office. (Except for maybe one character, Keith. But even he's allowed his moments.) It's biting, dark, and at times savage. BUT there is always an undercurrent of compassion and empathy; there aren't any stereotypes or caricatures, all the characters are complex, rounded human beings. The biggest figure of fun is David Brent and he's the one who you end up empathising with, and liking, the most.
Humour CAN be savage and dark but not sneering or nasty.