Pirates of the Crib 2

[Reality]

one out of 4 stars.
C-, maybe even D+

[westkoast]

one out of 4 stars.
C-, maybe even D+

Really?

Maybe I won't go see it today then.  That is what I was planning on seeing but a D+ ? Ack.

[Reality]

Really.  I can go into detail later.
You have commented earlier that you can always count on my movie reviews.  I believe you can absolutely also bank on this one.

Basically, a real snoozer of a plot.  Like 2 hours worth of snoozing.  When it finally kicks into the climax (last 20 minutes) and you think you are going to get some answers, a-n-y answers, all it does is convolute.  Literally like an English Comedy Benny Hill style with that famous English song playing and three different groups chasing each other around.  Oh okay, it settles a few points but really does nothing more then overbearingly obviously guarantee a 3rd movie.

Heavy on special effects, to the point of its more of a Creature Feature then a dramedy with good script like POTC1.  Godzilla vs Breathing Dragon 1962, altho the FXs are done fantastically and 101Xs as elaborate as '62 'Zilla.  The Fish Monsters Crew of Davie Jones and Company you have probably already seen in the tv commercials and previews.  They are more of the script then Capn Jack, Will Turner and very pretty (at times) Keira K.

The crowd we saw it with was a sold out show of hyper college kids.  The only time they cut loose is when the previews for Transformer 7/7/2007 were shown.  
The clapping at the end of Cribs2 lasted 3 seconds and barely broke 40 decibles.

Basic things to notice/ask those who loved it are:
1.  Is it  a chick?
2.  Other then Johnny Depp and Blooms dreaminess, what did you like?

[westkoast]

Yea I pretty much rely on your and Skander's reviews when I am going to go see a movie around this time.  So far they all have been on point.  I appreciate you guys taking time out to review em cuz it saves me money LOL.  Was going to go see it yesterday but held off based on the rating.  From what I've heard from co-workers who did see it this weekend it was nowhere near the first one and not even that great (aside from the females talking about the eye candy haha)

I am getting tired of sequels being nothing more then a hour long hype up/commercial for a third installment.  This is what it sounds like.  Instead of advancing a story they really treadwater and then leak some info at the end to get you hyped to see 3.  Or not even hyped but force you to see 3 haha

[Reality]

I am getting tired of sequels being nothing more then a hour long hype up/commercial for a third installment.  This is what it sounds like.  Instead of advancing a story they really treadwater and then leak some info at the end to get you hyped to see 3.  Or not even hyped but force you to see 3 haha

Pirates of The Profiteering :nod:

We'll see what Skandery, W.O.W. and others have to say.
 

[Skandery]

I was going to see this movie last weekend but the matinee was sold out, I was mad.  After hearing the records the movie broke for 3-day opening gross, I now realize there was just no seats to be had anywhere.  I finally did see it Friday night a couple of days ago, so here we go....

Pirates of the Caribbean is exactly what I've come to expect from a lavish, over-the-top, studio tent pole made exponentially more ridiculous by having Bruckheimer on board.  Of course being a Disney property, the twists, the gags, the mannerisms are all right to formula.  As I like to say about Disney movies, one is always subtley aware that your being brainwashed but you just don't care.

The cast was really hit or miss.  Sparkling performances by Johnny Depp, Mackenzie Crook (eyeball guy), and especially Bill Nighy (Davy Jones), clash against forgettable outings by Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly who more often than not seemed like they were just going through the motions.  Depp's  Captain Jack was decidedly more colorlful this time around with endless facial displays, declaratory arm-waiving, and delicate, if not feminine, prancing.  Amazingly these characterizations remain through the stunts and sword-fighting.  Bill Nighy gave a performance that really shined through his heavily CGI'ed character.

The movie had quite an episodic feel to it.  It seemed there was nothing that belonged to it.  The interplay between the two goofy pirates was already done, the Jack-Elizabeth-Will love triangle has long been hinted at, the ineptness of Governor Swann has been detailed, the sorrow Norrington feels at losing Elizabeth--old news.  There wasn't one plot point introduced in this film that was resolved during the film.  Now I understand leaving threads hanging in preparation of a sequel as much as the next guy but surely you can tie one thing up, at the very least.

Despite the over-abundance of effects, some half-hearted performances, and a plot utterly without resolution, I came out of the movie feeling like I had a good time (darn you Disney!).  The 3 hour endeavor drags at times, but generally keeps a good pace while playing to your senses.

C+[/b][/size]                      

[Reality]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1773

Interesting sidepoint.  Keira Knightley on what the movie hawkers make her do with her pectorals.

[guest-koast]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1773

Interesting sidepoint.  Keira Knightley on what the movie hawkers make her do with her pectorals.

Wouldn't you agree this is understandable to a degree?  If they are going to spend millions doing CGI to make the movie visually appealing then they are going to want to make their real life actors visually appealing.  The same reason they chose Johhny Depp as opposed to say Jack Black.  Or Orlando Bloom instead of some other less attractive male actor.  Teenage males in America, the ones who fall under the demographic this movie is geared towards, tend to like women who have those curves.  The reason men in other countries may not respond the same way is that curves may not be something men look for in those countries.

[Reality]

Wouldn't you agree this is understandable to a degree?

For a sleaseball studio to mislead?  Sure.

 

[WayOutWest]

Just a bunch of little stories strung together, not a real story line.  Exactly like a TV-Series cliff hanger last show of a season.  It was still entertaining because of Depp.

I'd give it a C+, it didn't glue me to my seat but I didn't feel like walking out or that I deserved my money back.

[westkoast]

Wouldn't you agree this is understandable to a degree?

For a sleaseball studio to mislead?  Sure.

I don't see you crying that they didn't use a fat male as a lead character.  This is part of being a movie star.  You are suppose to look a certain way to fill a role and please the audience.  Besides, she looks gross in those pictures.  She needs to gain more weight.

Overseas you have no problem with them wanting her to be a twig.  Wanting her to have bigger breasts is just as bad as them overseas wanting her to look like she is bulemic.

[sf101]

This movie did not suck. It was TOO long, the story could have been shortened, and the ending is frustrating, but I didn't walk out feeling ripped. The admission was worth the price of the special effects, which, were extremely well done.

[Reality]

I don't see you crying that they didn't use a fat male as a lead character.  This is part of being a movie star.  You are suppose to look a certain way to fill a role and please the audience.  Besides, she looks gross in those pictures.  She needs to gain more weight.

 [/quote]
 So how about

a.helping her to eat enough so they don't have to digitize her.  It is entirely acceptable in the Hollywood legal world to require an actor or actress to maintain a certain weight.  If she is unable to follow:

bee.  hiring another actress who is not anorexic.
All one needs to do is walk in any major mall in SoCal during rush days and you will find plenty of girls just as attractive as Knightley.
 
Where do you get this jive that oversees in into anorexic?  Nevermind.

[Skandery]

Wow:

I'd give it a C+

Copycat! B)

 

[guest-koast]

I don't see you crying that they didn't use a fat male as a lead character.  This is part of being a movie star.  You are suppose to look a certain way to fill a role and please the audience.  Besides, she looks gross in those pictures.  She needs to gain more weight.

 

So how about

a.helping her to eat enough so they don't have to digitize her.  It is entirely acceptable in the Hollywood legal world to require an actor or actress to maintain a certain weight.  If she is unable to follow:

bee.  hiring another actress who is not anorexic.
All one needs to do is walk in any major mall in SoCal during rush days and you will find plenty of girls just as attractive as Knightley.
 
Where do you get this jive that oversees in into anorexic?  Nevermind. [/quote]
 A) She can't gain a bunch of weight because then she wouldn't be appealing to do movies overseas.  Chosing her to gain or lose weight falls under the same category of making someones breasts look larger.  That is forcing them to look a certain way to please people.  That is what I am getting at.

B) Being attractive and being able to act, handle pressure, handle the work load involved is different then just finding an attractive girl.  I heard she sucked in the movie so maybe you are right, they could have got anyone LOL.