Pirates of the Carribean 2

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Just caught it-

 

the first half is great, but then it falters badly half way, even becoming boring. The script and art direction abandoned the period observations and Port Royal grounding in favour of the fantastical, and it just wasn't half as interesting. All pantomime cartoon make believe and no historical naval basis. Rick Heinrich's seems to have designed an over the top theatre production touring Hawaii as oppose to Brian Morris' work on the first movie, which was a copiously researched period movie in terms of art direction. The first movie was all about characters, pirates and adventure whereas this one is just an overhaul of superficial excess. Bill Nighy would have been far scarier without all of that distracting eye candy, endless loud tentacles, campy Phantom organ scene, and ILMs big stuff seemed heavy, obligatory and totally unrelated to the movie Gore Verbinski was making. Less is more was the success of the first film.

 

Movie's best moments are with the physical comedy (the beach scene with the chest, Jack Sparrow on a Kebab stick escaping cannibals, the water wheel) which Gore Verbinski executes with skill missing snce the days of John Landis and Richard Lester. Verbinski is the most interesting of the contemporary Hollywood directors out there and has a great old school studio vibe- it's gutting he didn't make the new Superman movie.

 

It seems the film had two directors: Verbinski making the character movie and then some visual effects director to dump in huge bloated effects sequences that don't help the story. There were visual hints and suggestions of Geoffrey Rush being a walking corpse in the first movie, but this one just thwacks over your head from start to finish that Davey Jones and his crew are rotting seafood. It's all just too much and too loud to look at and diverts your attention away from character and story when you really need to be involved in those latter elements.

 

On the plus side the movie photographically looked gorgeous for a super35 picture with an anamorphic blow up- it was pin sharp throughout, no soft shots. The big effects stick out a mile off as CG because they are always shot with wider lenses and lit up to a decent stop (to help the compositors more than anything) whereas the main unit footage is nearly wide open on longer lenses. When you've got an army of barnacle humanoids marching around all in focus fighting for screen attention in the same shot, it just leaves you thinking "so what?" and wondering why they are parading what the FX guys can do at the expense of story. ILM are at their best when they are aiding the story and Verbinski's vision with making the sight gags reality (the cages/Sparrows escape for example) and doing all the seamless chores (although my cinematography eye can tell alot of the invisible sky composites these days).

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Looking forward to seeing it just for the cinematography - Darius Wolski, ASC, is a bit of a favourite.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I saw it an hour ago and I can only agree with the concerns raised.

 

Junk.

 

Phil

[Ricardo Diaz]

Superman was better. In my opinion. Once I let it sink in i will write a more full report.

[Evan Winter]

great review tim,

 

i agree totally - very nicely shot but far less impressive narratively than PotC 1.

 

PotC 2 suffered horribly from the 'excess monster'... however, the message, 'it's all about story' is far less likely to get through to hollywood now that they've just scored:

 

1. the biggest opening day in history for a film ($55.5M)

2. the biggest weekend gross in history for a film ($132M)

3. the biggest top 10 weekend in history ($204M)

 

and all this on account of a movie that really isn't all that good... IMHO ;)

 

evan

[Rolfe Klement]

I agree with Tim - the movie dies about 2/3 of the way in. I heard some of the stars started demanding rewrites and then some producers did too - and then it all turned into a pigs muddle

 

As they say in some screen writing courses - the single most important line item in a movie is the desire line - What does each character want and what needs changing within themselves in order to achieve it - and this story dies when that starts getting muddled

 

Slightly off topic but read this: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/...adlines-entnews

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Matt Pacini]

I think those big $$$ numbers are a testament to an ever-growing world population, and also shows how well marketing works, regardless of the product.

 

I think that the Writers Guild needs to have a rule; if anyone that's not a writers guild member starts rewriting, then the writer gets a starring role added to the film, and you don't get to cut it out in post either.

That would curb some of this assinine practice of "OK, everyone help rewrite the script", which is just absurd.

I think that actors who sign on to a film, THEN later demand rewrites to favor their role in the film, lose their bond rating.

This has got to be one of the biggest reasons for films ending up sucking so bad, that start from a good script.

I won't even watch a Harrison Ford film anymore, because he always insists the script be changed to where he's damn near in every frame of the film.

 

MP

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I can only agree with everything Tim said in his review. Too loud, too big, too long and just a CGI spectacle. The smaller character stuff was the only good thing (with Sparrow's escape from the cannibals as the films hightlight) except for Dariusz's nice cinematography.

 

Halfway through it all I could think about was how much I'd rather be watching Master And Commander again.......

[David Mullen ASC]

I just saw it too -- loved the cinematography. 5245 still kicks ass for day exterior work. I liked the greenish hue to the moonlight scenes.

 

But the movie itself certainly got loud and tedious after awhile although there was enough eye candy supplied by the leading lady to keep me paying attention.

[Max Jacoby]

Haven't seen it yet, don't think I will, but I certainly heard it!

 

I was at the Notting Hill Coronet tonight, watching Ken Loach's Palm d'Or winning 'The Wind that shakes the Barely' and 'Pirates' was being screened just above. There are a lot of cannons being fired in that film from what I could hear...

[David Sweetman]

I think those big $$$ numbers are a testament to an ever-growing world population, and also shows how well marketing works, regardless of the product.

 

I couldn't stand the marketing, it was exactly the same as the first one. Was it the same director? I seem to recall that that guy is completely unoriginal, I've heard stories about him just blatantly ripping off another guy's work and passing it off as his own idea.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Although Hollywood is brim-filled with unoriginal hacks, I don't feel Gore Verbinski belongs to that category, necessarily. I've always enjoyed his films - especially the cinematography. Mouse Hunt, Weather Man and The Ring were all stunningly looking films. This one was no exception.

 

David, it looks a lot like Peacock Blue filtering for the greenish, blue hues. If my memory serves me correct, that's what I used in this still capture on a BBC job I did.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I remember Alex Thomson being fond of that gel, using it for some of "Excalibur" and the dry-for-wet underwater scenes in "Leviathan".

 

I just wasn't sure if Wolski was using tungsten or HMI lights as a basis for "moonlight", but I guess on a soundstage, he'd be using tungsten so it's possible it was that gel.

[Rolfe Klement]

Does anyone know what lenses were used - I assume Ultra Primes?

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Max Jacoby]

Primos

[Guest Kai.w]

Seen the movie at the weekend digitally projected.

 

I must say that I can accept slightly weaker blacks but get a stable an clean picture. You are now looking at an image instead of the projection of an image. It takes away another layer of abstraction making it much more transparent.

There was aliasing in the end credits but I'm rather sure thats due to bad sampling in its creation. I've done end titles in HD Res that looked fine on the film print but started to flicker in the digital projection. My fault.

 

As for the movie I thought it was less original than the first one, and way too long (there was not really much substance to fill up with anyway)

 

Hats off to ILM for Davey Jones. I wonder how many people realised that he was 100% (!) CG... amazing.

If I did not know, I'd have probably thought of some cg extension but 100% cg...?

 

-k

[Michel Hafner]

There was aliasing in the end credits but I'm rather sure thats due to bad sampling in its creation. I've done end titles in HD Res that looked fine on the film print but started to flicker in the digital projection. My fault.

I noticed that aliasing too (same as in Poseidon). So you say the letters are aliased on the 2K source but the print looks better because of the laser interpolation during output and some fuzzyness built into copying to a print and projecting it? Or does the DLP make it look worse than it is on the source? Why are credits not antialiased by default when they are digitally generated?

Michel Hafner

www.imdb.com

[Bob Hayes]

I went in expecting the worse and actually enjoyed the film. I?m such a sucker. Despite a non existent plot and endless repetition on the same action it was a fun ramp. Davy and his crew were fantastic. The conch headed demon was amazing, and the man trapped in the wall of the Flying Dutchman was elegant. The fight over the treasure chest at the water wheel was great. The excitement was with Disney?s best. The Kraken how ever was as one note as a monster has been in a film. No better the Ray Harryhausen?s work in ?It Came from Beneath the Sea?.

 

I saw no aliasing on the credits. Saw a film projection at the Bridge in LA.

[Guest Kai.w]

I noticed that aliasing too (same as in Poseidon). So you say the letters are aliased on the 2K source but the print looks better because of the laser interpolation during output and some fuzzyness built into copying to a print and projecting it? Or does the DLP make it look worse than it is on the source? Why are credits not antialiased by default when they are digitally generated?

Michel Hafner

www.imdb.com

 

First off all its not like you just turn antialiasing on. Its always a trade between sharpness / detail versus aliasing artifacts. What works best is to move the titles by an integer pixel value per frame. Most software applications offer some "preset" for this. Problem is that then you are very limited in chosing the right speed.

 

Furthermore you not always have the option to digitally preview in the native resolution (2k and beyond). Plus, but this is just guessing from my side, if the projector does not have the native res of what gets delivered to the theaters there might be some internal interpolation in the projector and with such a high local contrast (white pixel beside black)....

 

-k

[Michel Hafner]

First off all its not like you just turn antialiasing on. Its always a trade between sharpness / detail versus aliasing artifacts. What works best is to move the titles by an integer pixel value per frame. Most software applications offer some "preset" for this. Problem is that then you are very limited in chosing the right speed.

Of course you get softer if you avoid aliasing. If people think correctly antialiased 2K credits are too soft then 2K does not cut it as 35mm replacement. As simple as that. Bring on the 4K then.

How does that pixel trick work exactly? You flip between two positions 1 pixel apart 24 times a second? Some kind of averaging in the time domain? If that is it I wonder how well that works with DLPs and their own dither and error diffusion.

Furthermore you not always have the option to digitally preview in the native resolution (2k and beyond). Plus, but this is just guessing from my side, if the projector does not have the native res of what gets delivered to the theaters there might be some internal interpolation in the projector and with such a high local contrast (white pixel beside black)....

It was a 2K DLP with a 2K source. Interpolation was not involved. The aliasing was 2K pixel precise.

Michel Hafner

www.imdb.com

[Jonathan Bryant]

The cinematography was great I loved the low key scenes with candelight in the swamp.But the effects were over the top and took away from the movie. This could easily be a Scfi Tv Original and Scifi is not my taste. Johnny seems like a very feminine pirate when he fights with his limp hand. lol I saw lots of googlee eyed girls in the theater probably there just to see Johnny. Depp to me looks like the creepy guy that would steal your car.

 

It is a very sad day in america when garbage like this gets box office records like this.

[Thom Stitt]

Cinematography's always interesting in spectacle movies like this because it's often tied more closely with production design than other films. When I think of the "look" of Pirates 2, I think of the Flying Dutchman design, the gypsy soothsayer's house in the swamp, the beautiful caribbean jungles. Some of the scenes in the film look like they would have just been a pleasure for the cinematographer - There's just so much eye candy - Every scene is rich in detail.

 

Definitely a pretty film. I can completely forgive it for its narrative shortcomings because it was just such a ride. It's unfortunate that I really didn't give a damn about the characters, and the whats-hows-and-whys were pretty much arbitrary...

 

But honestly, if any movie can get away with being little more than an amusement park ride, shouldn't it be Pirates of the Caribbean?

Edited August 10, 2006 by Thom S

[Guest]

Finally saw this tonight....definately one of the weaker films I've seen in my life. Good grief it was so long and my wife and I where both quite bored. A few funny gags and that's it. The first one was much better.

 

The script was just horrific! I mean they where just all over the place, and that ending, oh my gosh what a terrible ending. I guess this means there will be a sequel?

 

I was actually getting sick looking at Davy Jones and his crew, no seafood for me for a while.

 

I will say it looked incredibly sharp on screen, barely any grain at all any where, and I usually see it quite easily. They must have used Fuji stock eh John Pytlak? :blink:

 

R,

[Daniel Sheehy]

I guess this means there will be a sequel?

 

You bet! ;)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/

[Thom Stitt]

I guess this means there will be a sequel?

 

Actually, didn't they shoot part 3 pretty much completely back-to-back with 2? It's the Matrix formula. Make the first one stand alone, see how it does. Leave it open for a possible sequel.

 

It kills. Save money shooting 2 and 3 together, string a cliffhanger between them, and make a trillion bazillion dollars. Hell, I'm surprised they're not doing that with Sin City. It works like gangbusters!

EDIT: (except for the fact that the Matrix sequels sucked).

 

Man, now someone just needs to follow the same formula with a bad-ass over-the-top ninja action trilogy.

 

i should pitch thaat... *dollar signs in eyes*

Edited August 13, 2006 by Thom S