Muzman on 20/3/2007 at 19:38

---

That reviewer is just placing his bets on a popularity-backlash-bandwagon field trip turning up and wants to make sure he's sitting up front near the teacher like the stuck up swot that he is.
Not much said there that wasn't said many times by many other reviewers when the first one came out, in essence. Main difference being they liked it. Yes it's based on a ride; yes Orlando Bloom is a charisma by-pass patient; yes the comedy is broad. Woo-hoo. Everyone knows this and yet it was still highly entertaining. (You're all mad though; the first one was flabbily over long and over stuffed as well, with a completely dumb stand off at the end). All the weird language, attention to detail and moral ambiguity regarding many of the main characters gives it verve that's worth watching, both of them.

Muzman on 20/3/2007 at 20:31

---

Prejudice just gets harder all the time. Sometimes I think it's not worth it.

I meant to add that the music isn't really John Williams-lite, it's more John-Williams-with-all-the-motif-subtlety-and-melody-cut-out, which is kinda John-Williams-leaden I guess. Zimmer did well with that one 30 seconds in Gladiator that's really good but not much else. I don't find his stuff distractingly bad though.

rachel on 20/3/2007 at 21:48

---

I WANT THESE MOTHERFUCKING SQUIDS OFF THE MOTHERFUCKING SHIP!


Seriously though, DMC was meh. I loved the first one, but the second was a bit of a letdown. That said, the final twist alone* makes the third one worth watching. :thumb:


*of the second one, 'f course

doctorfrog on 20/3/2007 at 22:13

---

Lost all interest after
I liked the first movie just fine, since I've always loved the ride, it was a big thrill seeing the whole thing last over two hours rather than five minutes. My second viewing of the first movie was a little more :erg:

I got considerably more fidgity watching the second. I don't have much interest in seeing the third installment (but the girlfriend does).

Then, on my most recent visit to Disneyland, I saw the cute little movie-related additions to the ride. It wasn't all-consuming (like, say, the Nightmare Before Christmas conversion of the Haunted House), but was still a bit irritating.

KingAl on 20/3/2007 at 23:55

---

Stront: It's all true, and it's all entirely irrelevant. All it proves is that Kermode is a narcissist with delusions of learnedness, believing that his thesis on the downfall of cinema is some kind of recondite revelation of profound proportions. Pirates is in no way meant to be an example of filmic adeptness - though I would note his assessment of Depp's acting disregards the existence of caricature. It is intended to be piffle - light entertainment. My fear for cinema lies in the likes of 'Crash': films which, in considering serious issues, somehow manage to drain all substance from them - though at the very least their success does bring the issues they consider to the fore.

Essentially, the quality of light entertainment is irrelevant when gauging the success of a culture. Much more significant is what the culture considers meaningful.

EDIT: The above post demonstrates exactly what's wrong with Kermode's approach. There's no question that making broad statements about the 'death of the medium' is humorous, but if he honestly expects a children's film to demonstrated narrative genius, he's utterly insane.