What are you talking about?! The Green Lantern film looks amazing!Not G. Ivingname said:This isn't looking to be a very good year of cinema
...Lol
Escape to the Movies: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
...Lol
If you have seen his video regarding that movie you might understand why he likes it despite it looking like a desperate massive cash-in movie that waves special effects and tits on teenagers in order to sell. That's what it looks like, I repeat. You actually pay attention to the movie, and discover it's much deeper behind the boobies, sexy costumes and special effect scenes.Serge A. Storms said:
It was sorta fun, and the priest had some mighty fine looking upper body muscles. I've seen worse movies.
Wouldn't call it good though.
Wouldn't call it good though.
Indeed, the Harry Potter films have actually been getting better as they go along, although that is largely because they have begun to actually include things that happen in the books rather than making up a load of crap in order to have some fancy special effects (fighting the Basilisk in 2 and the Dragon in 4).ZeroMachine said:tehweave said:
Film was a little short-sold, methinks. It was a fairly generic adventure where characters need to get this thing, that thing and one other thing in order to get the big super thing. Action sequences were on average pretty solid, as thankfully they played with the content of a few of them though the early chase scene and duel scene in particular felt a bit derivitive of the first film. The film has a few themes but a couple are pretty rarely mentioned, namely the religious conflict ones, but it did serve to give some nameless characters some interesting characterization. Seriously, the Spanish fleet commander is quite possibly the most interesting non-main cast character and he doesn't have a name. In just a few scenes you got quite the impression on his personality.
The missionary and the mermaid plot was contrived even by romantic plot tumor standards but at least there was blatant naivety on both sides, so it still could have been much worse. Still eliminating it probably could have made the film work a bit better and shave the film's length a bit.
Penelope Cruz's character did actually have a bit to her, as while she was a bit of a stereotype you got to see some interesting elemnents to her. The big thing is probably her story with Blackbeard as another big character bit, the fact that she used to basically be a soon to be nun, ends up making her a Latina who is religious. Thankfully she isn't so much a Bible-thumper as just someone who doesn't want a missionary killed in cold blood, so its not over the top.
Speaking of over the top, the King. King George the whatever was so incredibly hammy anyone who took a bite of him would die of a heart attack. He's only in one scene but man was it rediculous.
I would argue Barbossa's character isn't quite that differentt, the big thing is he underwent some major character changes in between movies and we do see signs of the old him by the end.
Blackbeard is a bit of a stumbling point for the film. The guy's got at least 4 magical abilities, and while the source of one is explained it isn't made clear aside from a vague implication of where any of them came from. By eliminating the missionary sub-plot we could have probably gotten a minor explanation since at least the pirate curse and Davy Jones offered some justification.
So yeah, I wouldn't call it terrible but it is kind of hard to see the film as not being a waste of time.
The missionary and the mermaid plot was contrived even by romantic plot tumor standards but at least there was blatant naivety on both sides, so it still could have been much worse. Still eliminating it probably could have made the film work a bit better and shave the film's length a bit.
Penelope Cruz's character did actually have a bit to her, as while she was a bit of a stereotype you got to see some interesting elemnents to her. The big thing is probably her story with Blackbeard as another big character bit, the fact that she used to basically be a soon to be nun, ends up making her a Latina who is religious. Thankfully she isn't so much a Bible-thumper as just someone who doesn't want a missionary killed in cold blood, so its not over the top.
Speaking of over the top, the King. King George the whatever was so incredibly hammy anyone who took a bite of him would die of a heart attack. He's only in one scene but man was it rediculous.
I would argue Barbossa's character isn't quite that differentt, the big thing is he underwent some major character changes in between movies and we do see signs of the old him by the end.
Blackbeard is a bit of a stumbling point for the film. The guy's got at least 4 magical abilities, and while the source of one is explained it isn't made clear aside from a vague implication of where any of them came from. By eliminating the missionary sub-plot we could have probably gotten a minor explanation since at least the pirate curse and Davy Jones offered some justification.
So yeah, I wouldn't call it terrible but it is kind of hard to see the film as not being a waste of time.
Scream 4 to its credit was better than 3. Die Hard 4 was actually fairly enjoyable (provided you watch the unrated version) though granted he still kills a helicopter with a car and the plot is still a bit of a what the hell. Heck Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in spite of its blatant flaws, I would argue is still better than Temple of Doom. Definitely liked Lethal Weapon 4 more than 3, but again, it was probably a waste of time. Of course, with Scream and Lethal Weapon you could argue the appeal was already gone with the third film.Legion said:Indeed, the Harry Potter films have actually been getting better as they go along, although that is largely because they have begun to actually include things that happen in the books rather than making up a load of crap in order to have some fancy special effects (fighting the Basilisk in 2 and the Dragon in 4).ZeroMachine said:tehweave said:
Of course it brings something new to the table of PotC
It's in THREEEEEEEE DEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
and thats about it.
The first time I saw a trailer for it, thats all I thought.
They just wanted at least one 3d PotC movie.
Elsewise if they're just doing random Jack Sparrow shenanigans off the main story....
I dunno, make a TV show or something.
Hmmm, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Animated Series
It's in THREEEEEEEE DEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
and thats about it.
The first time I saw a trailer for it, thats all I thought.
They just wanted at least one 3d PotC movie.
Elsewise if they're just doing random Jack Sparrow shenanigans off the main story....
I dunno, make a TV show or something.
Hmmm, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Animated Series
Did anyone see the interview in which someone connected with it (director maybe, or producer?) reckoned that it could challenge the Bond films for the crown as longest running franchise?
Leaving aside just how many Bond films there are, even the suggestion is totally fanciful. James Bond works because of the conception of the central character - the role exists, and is filled by actors with varying degrees of success.
Pirates of the Caribbean is a hit because of Johnny Depp. Can he really live long enough to make enough films to challenge Bond?
Leaving aside just how many Bond films there are, even the suggestion is totally fanciful. James Bond works because of the conception of the central character - the role exists, and is filled by actors with varying degrees of success.
Pirates of the Caribbean is a hit because of Johnny Depp. Can he really live long enough to make enough films to challenge Bond?
I was disappointed when me and some buddies saw it at the midnight opening in our town. The movie started out great, Jack being all crazy and ridiculous, but Bob hit it right on the nose; the movie just doesn't let Jack be the same Jack Sparrow that fans of the series wanted to see.
Calling a movie deep because it was made by Zach Snyder and not Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer doesn't mean that someone has good taste in movies. There were deeper themes about the nature of religion and redemption in Stranger Tides, but I don't see anyone accusing it of being a deep and meaningful experience simply by merit of those themes existing in the movie.sergnb said:
I didn't even mention Zach Snyder in my comment but yes, I agree that just because a movie could tackle a couple insightful points doesn't mean it makes it deep. And I'm not saying Sucker Punch is extraordinarily deep behind the makeup. All I am saying is the movie is perfectly fine, people need to look at it like it's just a manual-worthy marketing movie. It is not.Serge A. Storms said:
Edit: I see you mean Bob, not me. Note that while I referred you to Bob's video I was not saying he was totally right. I just think his opinion is pretty valid and deserves a second review. I was a little confused about what to think about Sucker Punch when I first saw it and Bob's perspective seems pretty fair. I have recommended the movie to friends, some have thanked me, some told me go to hell. D'ohwell
I really dont know about Bob anymore, I used to think he was someone who had an opinion i could trust and relate to. Not that i will go see this movie, because, I won't, but ever since the Scream 4 review (provided it was spot on) and the start of his new show The Big Picture he tends to not so much give a Review as much as pic apart the entire construction of a movie, its director and actors, which is fine but hardly tells the average person of its entertainment value. He is already hung up on things that are going to make him give it a bad review, like this movie, but i can almost assure you it will be the top grossing movie this weekend, millions will go to see it and for the most part anyone who liked the originals is going to like this one. The term cash grab is said as its a bad thing, to me its just giving people what they want. Entertainment dose not always involve heavy thought, in fact most people see movies to get away from all the heavy thinking and just want an escape from the drudgery of life, and this is THAT kind of movie. But take for instance the review on Troll Hunter, I watched it and upon reflection i saw alot of Bobs points about the movie (ie Modern Troll Hunters being hired goverment workers just punching a time clock, etc) but that didnt smack me right in the face or anything and had i not seen the review I probably would not have given it a second look and nothing of value would have been lost. But i payed to go see Thor (just like Ironman) based on the hype and to be honest was not impressed, not saying they where bad, just not the second coming as alot of people would have you think, they where good but not something i would see again... but thats just my opinion.
I just want to say that I am very disappointed in this review. I usually enjoy Bob's reviews, but this one let me down, especially in the way that it seemed from his description of the plot of the first three movies that he'd just read the Wiki page. First off, Will was never the 'Main Character' and Jack Sparrow was, in absolutely no way his 'Wacky Sidekick.'
Jack was always the main character. He's the one who kept the story moving. No fan of this series gives two fucks about Will Turner or Elizabeth Swan. Frankly I was kind of glad they were out of the way in this one. Their Jane Austen-esque plot was finished three quarters of the way through the first film, and yet the writers drug it out for another five hours. Jack was the reason the series continued. The whole Davy-Jones plot that spanned Dead Man's Chest and At World's End were all about Jack. And it was good. The character was well-developed and likable, even if he was a complete idiot.
Stranger Tides is not shocking anyone by being a 'Jack Sparrow Movie.' The series has been all about him. And I doubt this was just a cheap attempt to bring in more cash. It's a very well done series and it's garnered millions of fans. I also doubt Johnny Depp or Geoffery Rush would participate in a film being done just to squeeze money out of a franchise. He seems to have more respect for his craft than that.
Perhaps the direction was a little less than on par, but how could it not be after Verbinski left? One film not up to standards in a series is no reason to give up on the series as a whole. Just look at Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Jack was always the main character. He's the one who kept the story moving. No fan of this series gives two fucks about Will Turner or Elizabeth Swan. Frankly I was kind of glad they were out of the way in this one. Their Jane Austen-esque plot was finished three quarters of the way through the first film, and yet the writers drug it out for another five hours. Jack was the reason the series continued. The whole Davy-Jones plot that spanned Dead Man's Chest and At World's End were all about Jack. And it was good. The character was well-developed and likable, even if he was a complete idiot.
Stranger Tides is not shocking anyone by being a 'Jack Sparrow Movie.' The series has been all about him. And I doubt this was just a cheap attempt to bring in more cash. It's a very well done series and it's garnered millions of fans. I also doubt Johnny Depp or Geoffery Rush would participate in a film being done just to squeeze money out of a franchise. He seems to have more respect for his craft than that.
Perhaps the direction was a little less than on par, but how could it not be after Verbinski left? One film not up to standards in a series is no reason to give up on the series as a whole. Just look at Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
