I have formulated a standard for determining which movies I really like, and it is based on DVD ownership. What is interseting is that we don't ever own any movies we buy, sure we own the actual disc, but copyright law only gives us access to the movie. Here are the three categories in my "DVD ownership" method: 1. I see a movie in the theater and before it's even over I know I want the DVD. 2. I walk out of the theater, I'm glad I saw the movie, but if I never see it again I'll be just fine. 3. I sit through the movie (walking out on a movie must be reserved for the very worst) and dread having to see commercials for the DVD in the coming months because the movie is so lame. What's funny about this system is if you really put it to the test, you don't need to buy many DVDs. Most movies aren't worth watching in the first place, and so many more don't deserve a second chance. Pay respect by only purchasing those cream of the crop DVDs, perhaps it'll send a message to filmmakers, and we won't get any more "Matrix Revolutions" or "Pirates of the Caribbean 2s"...
That's right, I said "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" in the same sentance as "Matrix Revolutions". If you don't understand how much a slap in the face that was intended to be, perhaps you should reaxamine your taste in movies. I could go into why part two wasn't good, but since this is a review of part three, let's move on... "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" falls into the second categoy of my DVD test. I'm glad I saw it. Johnny Depp was great, and had a fair amount of the movie's focus. The upside down ship was super sweet, actually the whole sequence of events leading up to it (Depp's nose to the draining of the water). There were funny moments. Awesome moments. Perfectly carried out moments (Captain Jack's dad). But that's just not enough. Please note that if I list a bunch of specific qualities about a movie, but cannot formulate a paragraph that explains how everything worked together, then it wasn't a great movie. Here's a paragraph for you:
The main problem I have with "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" is that there are too many characters, most of whom are non-essential to the convoluted plot. Low level pirates, love-scorned goddesses, and incompetent soldiers feel like filler in a movie that has a couple great perfomances and a cool concept. Sparrow and Barbossa could carry this film single-handedly, but in many scenes are reduced to background, which is unfortunate because I so much want to see more of them. The movie wasn't an hour longer than it should have been, it was 83 cast members bigger than it should have been. The only hope I have is that since enough of those extra characters got killed off in this movie, that maybe, just maybe we'll get a streamlined group of pirates in the next one.
So far only the first "Pirate" movie has made it into the DVD ownership category, which is alright since I only have a limited space in my bookcase.
1 comment:
I saw it twice and I think it's really good. Some of the special effects (when the ship is blowing up around the East India Tradining guy) are amazing. You may be right when you say there were too many characters, and you could be right when you say sparrow and barbosa could carry the entire film, but I like it just the way it is. I also think that you are being completly unfair to the second movie, or pirates and the matrix. It is almost impossible to make a great second movie off such an original idea. People will look for all this original stuff, but the truth is your going to have the same main characters and a story that goes along the same line. All it seems there is to do is add a new villan and crazyer special effects and bigger scenes. I think that the matrix 3 is what trully sucked. If your going to end a story, it has to be a good ending. If you going to use special effects, they can't look fake.... Anyways, I really liked it and am looking foward to pirates 4.
Post a Comment