Saw it at the Vista*** for the second time today. Being a strictly 2d showing and no question about the projection(there have been articles arguing that theaters are accidentally/intentionally leaving 3d filters on 2d showings and hindering the quality) I can honestly say that while the 3D adds great depth to the majority of the movie, BUT 2d is about 3 or 4 ticks brighter. So much brighter in fact that a major plot point was too dark to be caught in 3d. So, a 3d movie SHOT in 3d with RED cameras and certainly no shortage of $$$ to brightness/color correct was too dark to actually see important details. This gives almost no hope to movies that are post converted.
As far as the movie, it was even better the second time. **** YOU critics. Seriously **** YOU.
***I would like to thank Boy1nder for bringing the Vista theater to my attention. Such a beautiful theater with tremendous sound and people like the Manager/Operator who actually care about your moviegoing experience. Seek out and support this theater guys, it's a throwback to the way movie theaters used to be.
After about half an hour or so, I was worried it was going to turn into an Austin Powers movie -- riding on the one or two things that were fun in previous movies and just running them into the ground. And then when Judy Dench showed up, I was like, "Oh, s***. Cameos."
But once they actually got underway and maybe a little before the mermaids, it picked up a bit.
-- That cleric dude - he was basically just around to make her cry, right? Cuz that was a lot of time devoted to that entire storyline and it didn't really feel all that necessary.
-- Why would the mermaid go help anyone? Especially when the cleric dude was lying there hurt.
-- Trying to come up with something I REALLY liked about this movie is kinda difficult.
Overall: probably better than 2 & certainly 3, but overall, pretty meh.
I don't watch a whole lot of movies so I don't know her name but the main chick over acted and was obnoxious to the point where it made me not like the movie as much. It was pretty ok though
I agree about the missionary, dude sucked all of the charisma out of the screen every scene.
That part of the story was so small and relatively insignificant that it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was supposed to be more fleshed out, but was ultimately cut down to a minimal screen time because it was so poorly executed. He and the captured mermaid were by far the least compelling parts of the film.
And you have Ian McShane. If there was ever a presence so menacing that it didn't have to be reinforced with some supernatural mumbo-jumbo, it was him. How's bout just a bad ass, tough as nails villain feared for his reputation and ability as opposed to some sort of cgi bullcrap?
Just saw this again earlier with my parents. I honestly can't put into words how much I loved Ian McShane in this. I would love if they could somehow bring Blackbeard back for the next film. I just really, really enjoyed this movie. I actually liked it more the second time around.
My mom thought Penelope Cruz was annoying, but I really didn't mind her.
Sure there were plot holes...sure the mermaid/cleric thing was shoehorned and ultimately unecessary...
Love these movies...love Sparrow/Barbossa/Mr Gibbs and just the plain sense of old timey FUN that these flicks have. And, the callbacks to that damned monkey were priceless. The escape from the King sequence reminded me of how the Roger Moore Bond movies always started out with a really gimmicky 15 minute chase sequence to give the movie a shot of energy/cheese and get folks smiling. And Keef was brilliant once again as far as a stunt cameo. Critic proof.
Weren't you vehemently arguing in another thread about how movie goers need to take a stand against drivel or something to that extent?
Yup. But drivel this ain't. It's one thing to present a irreverent comedy about bible stories and be as sharp as wet newspaper...but this, the fourth in a series of movies about PIRATES...is everything you would expect. I do not need cutting edge satire from a Disney movie about pirates. I just need an enjoyable re-use of characters that I love very much. I knew this would be simple entertainment...and that's exactly what it was. I don't need every movie to push envelopes, but if you are going to go into an area where envelopes NEED BE PUSHED, don't funk the puck out. Guess what...I do not expect Cowboys vs Aliens to be anything BUT a summer popcorn flick. But it's a fine line. You can't go all Transformers and just make a **** movie that's all noise and indescriminate cgi-banging-into-more-cgi. At least Pirates has human characters that you can tell the difference between and they never try to overwelm you with noise as entertainment. I likes what I likes and every movie is on a case by case basis. I will be the first to admit that sometimes my opinions about stuff can seem contradictory. What can I tell ya? I don't always stick to my mission statements.
Originally Posted by darby
I don't mind her either. ;)
Originally Posted by mmmcammy
So, if you set out to make ANY movie about the Bible, including one created as a vehicle for the guys who push insane buttons with such edgy films as "Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny" and "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist," you have a responsibility to push the envelope, but when it comes to making a movie about pirates with the sole intention of making s***wads of money while riffing on the same 5 gags in a 4th iteration, s'all cool just because "you likes what you likes?"
Originally Posted by jerseydevil
I mean, I'm all cool with that second part, but am a bit perplexed by the vehemence by which you stood by the first.