DMC Reviews

[dwgm]

I must say, it might be helpful to the movie-going public to have a reviewer that actually likes summer action/adventure popcorn-munchers review movies like Dead Man's Chest. I just read the very negative review written by Mick LaSalle for the San Francisco Chronicle, which, juxtaposed with the positive and very even-handed review by the Yahoo Movie Mom, makes me wonder if they watched the same movie.

Comments

[dressagespirit.livejournal.com]

I'm weighing in without having seen, nor will I see, the sequels. From that perspective, it's really interesting because the bad reviews all are pretty much saying the same thing, as are the good reviews. I'm not sure I've ever seen such utter dichotomy in movie reviews - both by critics AND fans. People seem to either love it or hate it, and those people who hate it all mention the same reasons (no storyline, CJS is different, etc...), and then the people who love it mention the same things within that group (great action, CJS is back, etc...). It's actually pretty interesting, especially if you haven't seen the movie and are viewing it from the outside. The story research person in me is just dying to do some kind of study to try to figure out what is going on. LOL

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

The story research person in me is just dying to do some kind of study to try to figure out what is going on. LOL

Probably you'd have to see the movie to do that effectively.

Yes, I've noticed all the negative points are usually the same as they were for CotBP, too. I think this is a movie you need to see more than once to absorb everything that's going on, which, as a fan and fanfiction writer, I'm perfectly willing to do. I was very happy about having been so thoroughly spoiled on it, too -- surprise isn't so important to me in a movie as understanding, and particularly in this case.

But I'm glad there's less than a year to wait before the conclusion. :)

[dressagespirit.livejournal.com]

Well, having not seen the movie makes me an unbiased researcher.

The major points that seem at odds are - story vs. lack of storyline/confusing storyline; too silly vs. too violent (both of these are negatives, but I find it so interesting that those two extremes can exist at the same time); CJS not the same vs. CJS is back.

I'm glad you liked it, though. :-)

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

I did like it, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again tomorrow. But I agree that the division of reviews would make an interesting research project.

[dressagespirit.livejournal.com]

If I do the research, I'll be sure to let you know so I can get your opinions.

BTW, thought you might like this link - http://pub10.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=804823979 - there are some clips from the movie and other clips, too. :-)

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

I noticed the break between critics and reviewers last week as the reviews started coming in.

The first few I read were wonderful and the writers really seemed to like the movie and then the Associted Press review was released to publications (including my newspaper of employment) on Tuesday. When I read that review I wondered if the woman had actually seen the movie. Then more negative reviews flooded in and I started thinking that I may be really heartbroken by this sequel. The best middle-of-the-road review that I have read is from Rolling Stone. Peter Travers actually appeared to have seen the film and, while he didn't love it, he enjoyed it and marked points that he did not like so much. It was refreshing to see someone that liked the movie for what it is, a swashbuckling adventure.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

I was expecting the division -- CotBP wasn't universally praised by any means, even though almost everyone loved Depp in it. But I was hoping there would be less of the snobby kind of reviewers and more of the kind that have their finger on the pulse of the movie going public.

It amazes me how many reviewers seem to just give a brief look at a movie, missing so much and even getting details wrong in their reviews, as though they weren't really watching very closely. Why they send such people to pass judgement on a movie that the public has been anticipating with joy for months is quite beyond logic.

I'll have to go read that review by Travers -- I have the magazine, but I've only read the article about JD (and stared at the pix, of course. *G*)

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

I wasn't surprised by the divide in reviews, what bothers me it that it does appear that some of the reviewers did not watch the movie, only read pre-press for it and then passed judgements. I think that's called not doing your job.

Travers actually seemed to have seen the film. He seemed to like it but have reservations about certain points, which most people have.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

some of the reviewers did not watch the movie, only read pre-press for it and then passed judgements

Do they do that? And get away with it? O.o

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I knew a movie reviewer in college who was blind and did not go to the theater. Instead he would have people read him the press stuff and listen stuff on TV and write a review from that.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Goodness. What a cheat!

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

I know! He said that he didn't trust himself with watching movies and giving them a fair review since he could no longer see properly. That's when you GIVE UP the column. Seriously, if I lost my hearing the music reviews would go.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

You do music reviews?

*is awestruck*

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, for years!
I started doing them in college and then became the first to write music reviews for my hometown paper when I did an internship there and I kept the column at the hometown paper (through my last two years of college) until I took the it to my current paper of employment. I doubt I will be able to take it with me again, but I hope, it gets my foot-in-the-door with a magazine or much larger paper.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

That is so cool! What a joy it must be to combine two wonderful avocations and earn a living with them.

*is still awestruck*

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say that I earn a living with them. I make a bit of money. LOL
If you want, I can give you a link to my most recent review.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

That would be great!

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

Here you go: http://newsandsentinel.com/include/articles.asp?articleID=6625

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Thanks! That was great. Makes me want to listen to that album.

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

And I don't even really like Johnny Cash! But, that CD is fantastic!

[torn-eledhwen.livejournal.com]

I will judge tomorrow. Yay!

In the meantime, the Flick Filosopher as usual reviews as a filmgoer and a movie fan, not a critic. She likes movies for movies' sakes, and her tastes usually match mine.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link! That was a good, well-thought-out review.

[nelsonium.livejournal.com]

Yes, I read that Chronicle review! It was horrible and disparaging. Not going to deter me from seeing Cap'n Jack Sparrow though! :D

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Saw it again today with ladymora, and enjoyed it even more. Takes multiple viewings to catch everything.

[hendercats.livejournal.com]

The reviewer for our local paper did not like it - said it was like a continuation rather than a sequel (um ... he must use some other dictionary than I do: se·quel n. 1. Something that follows; a continuation. 2. A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work. *is confused*), and that the characters had not changed.

I attempted to do a comparison - find a critic I'm familiar with that had reviewed them both - but no luck.

You mentioned above that you think it's a movie one needs to see more than once. *bounce* Think I would be disappointed if that were not the case, since CotBP was certainly like that (was still noticing things after a dozen or more viewings).

Am curious. Did you watch CotBP in the last day or two before you went to see DMC?

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

You mentioned above that you think it's a movie one needs to see more than once. *bounce* Think I would be disappointed if that were not the case, since CotBP was certainly like that (was still noticing things after a dozen or more viewings).

Exactly. Even now, repeat viewings of that movie turn up fresh details. That's precisely the way it will be with DMC.

I didn't watch CotBP in the last day or so. It has a sort of semi-permanent status in my bedroom DVD player and I watch bits and pieces of it but haven't seen it straight through for a while. I should remedy that, and may do so this morning, before we go see it again this afternoon.

Your local reviewer sounds like he needs a dictionary. And the characters haven't changed? Well, not essentially, but Will and Elizabeth have certainly grown in many ways -- I love both of them so much in this -- and Jack is still Jack, funny, vain, self-serving, and a good man.

[ladywarringford.livejournal.com]

As a general rule of thumb, I make it a habit to never listen to the words of those who don't actually have to PAY for their viewings. These are the same people who said the first movie was crap.

As a response, I say look at the foreign and domestic box office returns.

Now they say this movie is crap. This movie is poised to shatter the box office records for a one day take alone.

These are also the same people who gave such glittering reviews to Revenge of the Sith -- a movie that I like to refer to as: Episode III: Thank God That's Over.

In other words, don't listen to 'em. They don't know squat. Or Jack. Or much of anything else, for that matter. For myself, I've seen DMC twice in a 24 hour period, and will no doubt see it again before the weekend's over. And, yes, I pay for my tickets.

No small thing, considering today's box office prices. And don't even get me started on concession fees. LOL!

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

I saw it again yesterday -- went with my daughter to buy tickets for a big group of us today and the two of us got sucked into a 3:30 showing of it. So sad. [/crocadile tears]

One viewing is not enough to absorb everything in this movie, just as was the case with the first one. The plot is complicated, though not in the least chaotic, and it moves at such a pace that it's impossible to see everything at one go. I enjoyed certain elements much more the second time, and was still impressed with everything else, particularly the characterisations, which is the most important element for us writers.

I bet you had a great time last Thursday/Friday at the El Capitan!

[bizarra.livejournal.com]

I am completely not worried about any negative reviews the movie is getting becuase frankly... the reviews for the first one were largely all negative... and once the movie then made a metric tonne of money, they were all tripping over themselves to say.. no wait.. did I say it sucked No, it was awesome, really! I loved it.

*Pah critics* who needs em...

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

That's exactly as I remember it. And it's the same sorts of criticisms that are being aimed at this one. You'd think they'd remember that.

[sonja-riddle.livejournal.com]

Dead Man's Chest had its flaws, I will say that. The movie in all was not the poor attempt at a sequel everyone seems to say it is. If you took the first Pirates, string it together with DMC, and then add whatever has already been shot for 'PoTC: World's End', you would get the equivalent of the Lord of The Rings trilogy. Let me explain what I actually mean by this. The first Ring flick was an introduction; enough action was there to keep us satisfied, as well as give us a chance to meet and learn about the characters. The Two Towers (much like Dead Man's Chest does for PoTC) set up the plot and characters for the final installment of the trilogy. Part 2 of 3 may not make much sense, but when you look back on it in the end, you figure out just what the hell everyone was doing.

I liked the movie. I did not want to leave my seat. The only mistake the movie made was dicing up the plot into so many different sequences. I laughed and missed the explanation as to why Jack was cursed. Annoying, yes, but I did not enjoy the movie any less because of it.

I understand why critics may be upset; but remember, in a two-parter, everything comes together in the second-half.

[sonja-riddle.livejournal.com]

I forgot to mention, the third LoTR, all action. Every plot, every struggle, resolved. Hopefully, 'World's End' will pull everything together.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Hopefully, 'World's End' will pull everything together.

That's what all of us are hoping, I think. I enjoyed DMC on its own merits, but it's going to be a long year before we know Jack is safe.

[honorat.livejournal.com]

Having not seen the second movie yet, *mourns deeply*, I cannot say which critic I agree with, although I've been reading them. The overwhelming impression that I received from the negative reviews was that the reviewer had not viewed CotBP since 2003 and had forgotten the multi-charactered, unexplained-allusioned, plothole-infested, baroquely-plotted original entirely. They keep complaining that the plot is not epic enough. Now that was what I loved about this movie. To put Captain Jack in an epic plot would practically be theatre of the absurd--meaningless. The fate of the universe shouldn't be in his hands. What REAL PEOPLE loved about this movie was the fact that under all the swashing and buckling and CGI special effects and magnificent sets, this was a character movie. The plot was about their character arcs. So I think this very weird hybrid--a drama/action adventure/character movie just doesn't fit comfortably in anyone's categories. They keep blaming the movie for being what it never claimed to be and what would have made it something we fans would have hated. What we loved about PotC1 was those lovely/horrible people. And that's what we'll love about PotC2.

And I've also been reading far too many of the lj writers who've reviewed it as well. In general the people who disliked the second movie the most are the ones whose ships are becoming too AU. The changes in the Navy is another bone of contention. I also think that fandom has made something far more literary than the original movie purported to be, and have not yet realized they will do it again with this one.

I think you nailed it when you said this was a popcorn blockbuster. Johnny has consistently described his character as a cartoon one after all! So think of DMC as what would happen if Elmer Fudd actually did shoot Bugs Bunny. What were reviewers expecting!?

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

They keep complaining that the plot is not epic enough. Now that was what I loved about this movie. To put Captain Jack in an epic plot would practically be theatre of the absurd--meaningless. The fate of the universe shouldn't be in his hands.

As you said over at Black Pearl Sails, the fate of single souls is what drives this story. We care what happens to these people, imperfect as they are. Saving the world is all well and good but it's hard to relate to that on a personal level. But when Jack's standing under the steps to the quarterdeck, shaking in his boots, we can really feel his terror, particularly after seeing the movie for the first time and coming back to it. His time is up, he's on the run from death, and his reaction is all too human (albeit Sparrow-flavored).

I think you nailed it when you said this was a popcorn blockbuster. Johnny has consistently described his character as a cartoon one after all! So think of DMC as what would happen if Elmer Fudd actually did shoot Bugs Bunny. What were reviewers expecting!?

I don't know, but they did the same with the first movie. I remember all these same criticisms three years ago, and yet within a few weeks they were eating their words and there was epic fanfic coming from it (though I didn't discover the latter until about November '03). It'll be interesting to see how the reaction is to this one, though. It's a middle movie, lighter and darker than the original, and the main characters are all ones we've come to know very well. I am SO happy about Bootstrap being in it, and that there is that strong hint of J/E interaction. It's like a dream come true, for me, in that sense.

[honorat.livejournal.com]

As you have read at BPS, I have now seen the movie twice. :D And I am combusting under the lack of DVD. When I saw the first movie in 2005, I could rewatch it to my heart's content. But now I have to find the time to go to the theatre and can't just pick it up here and there in spare moments. Blah!

Part of the problem with some of the reviewers I've read was that so many of the jokes in the movie were so inside. If a reviewer hadn't seen the original movie since 2003, how were they going to remember why it's a scream that Jack shoots the monkey all the time, that Giselle sends a slap to Jack via Will, that the rum is always gone and must be hidden around Elizabeth, that Jack burns the rum, that Jack is still rooting for Norrington, and that Jack hits Will over the head with an oar, to name a few. And how are they to remember why there is so much poignancy in the threat of mutiny, in the sight of that red-hot letter P and Jack's hand going to his arm and his wince when Elizabeth mentions Beckett, in the look on Jack's face when he says "It's only a ship" and then turns to her like a man to his dying lover, to name a few more. One reviewer complained about all the spare characters with little bit parts that meant nothing--by which they meant Governor Swann and Giselle and the dog and so on. This was a sequel people. Not a stand alone movie. And PotC has always been about the people--as Gore said, the things people respond to in PotC could be filmed with a set of lights and a camera in the trunk of a car. The people who didn't care about the characters in this one didn't care about them in the last one.

I actually think the scope for fanfic will remain just as great with PotC2 because of the nature of the story. Ted and Terry love dumping hints of stories into their script and not explaining them--Jack's relationship with Bootstrap, Jack's adventure in the Turkish prison, Davy Jones' backstory with Jack and with his beloved, Jack's backstory with the Pearl, Ragetti's perversely educated illiteracy, Jack's relationship with the Pelagostos, Jack's relationship with Tia Dalma, Jack's relationship with Giselle, Barbossa's relationship with Jack, Barbossa's relationship with Tia Dalma, Davy Jones' relationship with Tia Dalma, Will's time on the Flying Dutchman, Norrington's pursuit of Jack into the teeth of a hurricane, Norrington's resignation of his commission, what happened to Governor Swann, Jack's interaction with Beckett--I think I'd better stop here, but I could keep going. What other movie opens so many possibilities?

I loved the increasing complication of all these characters and their relationships. I'm fascinated by Bootstrap and Will and I want to see more of Bootstrap and Jack. And Jack and Elizabeth are dynamite, or possibly nitroglycerin, together in this. I think those of you who write posthumous-Will J/E fics are certainly vindicated that that is within canon. I really can't wait to see how the next movie sorts things out.

Oh I want a DVD! All this talk makes me want to go see it again!

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

I want a DVD, with all the deleted scenes and commentaries, NOW. And I may have to go see it again this week -- saw it for the third time and enjoyed it just as much, if not moreso. I like Davy Jones as a character more each time. And I'd go just to see the J/E interaction. *G*

Two things: 1) so sorry I have not yet replied to your wonderfully detailed feedback on Dark of the Moon -- have been meaning to do so for days and days, but have not due to Scattered Brain Syndrome. Soon, though. And 2) 17? < puppydogeyes >.

[honorat.livejournal.com]

I think we should demand the release of the DVD with commentaries NOW, too. I am so hoping that Johnny will comment again, because I want his take on his character so badly. And I am slavering for deleted scenes. I may have to go see it a few more times this week!

I'm glad you've enjoyed the feedback on DotM. I don't worry too much about responses. After all, you beta my work! Speaking of which, I have the worst case of writer's block on 17. I keep trying to finish it, but I am not at all happy with it yet. It moves like a spavined mule and I need it to gallop.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear. Maybe I could read it anyway? Maybe I could figure out why it's spavined. You never know. It could happen. ;)

[honorat.livejournal.com]

There are some major portions of it that are unfinished. So it is probably beyond all but muse inspirational help. I know what has to happen. I just need the words. I'm happy with the dialogue between Duncan and Jack, however. Duncan is coming along nicely as a character. I'm having to balance Jack's coming up with a plan to modify the ownership of the Defender without giving away all the details of said plan so as to surprise my readers a bit.

[cymbeline.livejournal.com]

I just went to see it last night and loved it! Definitely bears a repeat viewing and soon because I know I missed stuff just trying to absorb it all. I am really fascinated by Davy Jones, Tia Dalma, and Bootstrap.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

They're all such great characters. Well, we've always loved Bootstrap!fic, haven't we?

I haven't forgotten I owe you birthday fic -- Jack/Pearl really wants to be written, and soon!