Critics Be Damned!

[Guest]

Well inspite of Entertainment Weekly giving the news Pirates Of The Caribbean movie a D+.

 

(EW's own Lisa Schwarzbaum is definitely in the latter, calling the flick ''a theme ride, if by ride you mean a hellish contraption into which a ticket holder is strapped, overstimulated but unsatisfied, and unable to disengage until the operator releases the restraining harness'' in her D+ review)

 

It still managed to break all the box office records:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060709/ap_en_mo/box_office

 

So if this movie is as bad as EW says, why did so many people pay to see it? Are the critics that out of step with main stream America? Or do these "Blockbusters" get hammered because they are all about VFX and marketing vs "substance". How ever you define substance.

 

It's interesting how Crash won best picture, but I have yet to meet a single non-film industry person who actually saw it. In fact I think so few people saw Crash that it reminds me of the Canadian Oscars (Genies), where no one in Canada has ever seen or heard of the winners.

 

R,

[Hal Smith]

Well inspite of Entertainment Weekly giving the news Pirates Of The Caribbean movie a D+.

The wife and I went to see "A Prairie Home Companion" yesterday afternoon. On the way out I happened to notice a l-o-n-g line waiting to get into a theatre for "Pirates" as the previous audience was filing out. About half of the departing audience look like, indeed, they had just spent two hours on the theme park ride from hell. Some people looked like they had a good time, but certainly not all. No-one really looked like they had just seen one of the those movies that leaves a huge smile on your face and that you just want to gabble on for hours about.

 

PS: PHC was great, the Master has not lost his touch.

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

Well inspite of Entertainment Weekly giving the news Pirates Of The Caribbean movie a D+.

 

(EW's own Lisa Schwarzbaum is definitely in the latter, calling the flick ''a theme ride, if by ride you mean a hellish contraption into which a ticket holder is strapped, overstimulated but unsatisfied, and unable to disengage until the operator releases the restraining harness'' in her D+ review)

 

It still managed to break all the box office records:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060709/ap_en_mo/box_office

 

So if this movie is as bad as EW says, why did so many people pay to see it? Are the critics that out of step with main stream America? Or do these "Blockbusters" get hammered because they are all about VFX and marketing vs "substance". How ever you define substance.

 

It's interesting how Crash won best picture, but I have yet to meet a single non-film industry person who actually saw it. In fact I think so few people saw Crash that it reminds me of the Canadian Oscars (Genies), where no one in Canada has ever seen or heard of the winners.

 

R,

 

I did not read any reviews of the movie at all before going to see it. I figured hey, I get to see $100+ million go off before my eyes for $6.50, may as well see what happens.

 

It was utterly disappointing. I would say that a rating of D+ is about fair, if not even a little generous. One of the biggest let downs in a long time for me.

 

I would say that you are right on with it being hammered for all VFX and no substance. That was exactly the problem with it.

[Philz]

I did not read any reviews of the movie at all before going to see it. I figured hey, I get to see $100+ million go off before my eyes for $6.50, may as well see what happens.

 

It was utterly disappointing. I would say that a rating of D+ is about fair, if not even a little generous. One of the biggest let downs in a long time for me.

 

I would say that you are right on with it being hammered for all VFX and no substance. That was exactly the problem with it.

 

It was a good, action-packed film, but I think if the audience is going to be confused in any part of it, it was doomed. I was confused over half of the film, so.. yeah I won't go there. It was still a fun movie to see.

[Tim Carroll]

My wife and I saw it yesterday. She really wanted to see it. What a waste of money. Not only ours for paying to see it, but Disney's for making it. The special effects were very well done. That is the only plus. The story was so totally full of holes that it made me sick.

 

If you saw the first movie, which I liked very much, and then see this, it is almost so bad that it ruins the first movie. There is the whole concept of (for lack of knowing the proper term, I will call it "movie truth"). Rules are established in the imaginary world of the film. I.E. in "Black Pearl", the first movie, it was established that the crew of the Black Pearl was doomed to be immortals because they stole the Cortez gold. But if the gold was all returned, and the pirates blood spilt, then they would all turn back into mortals. And then they could be killed. So why are characters from the first movie, who are now supposed to be mortals, showing up as immortals in the second movie (with all the same characteristics as in the first movie, you shoot them and they don't die, they turn into skeletons in the moonlight)?

 

There are so many holes like that in the film, things that make no sense other than to give Jerry Bruckheimer a chance to do more special effects. I can't talk about any of the other glaring holes in "movie truth" without giving away too much of the plot. Suffice to say, I was really pissed off that so much talent was wasted on such a horribly cobbled together story.

 

-Tim

[Max Jacoby]

So if this movie is as bad as EW says, why did so many people pay to see it?

The answer is quite simple really: the box-office of a film simply has nothing to do with it's quality. It's all about marketing.

[Tim Carroll]

The answer is quite simple really: the box-office of a film simply has nothing to do with it's quality. It's all about marketing.

 

And they better have cleaned up this weekend because as word gets around, their box office is going to stink as bad as their movie.

 

-Tim

[Guest]

"It's all about marketing."

 

The marketers douped that many people?

 

In that case the public is either very dumb, or the marketers are very smart.

 

R,

[Guest kev5000]

Max is right. Its all about marketing. PIRATES went through a years worth of marketing. Ranging from tabloid gossip to teasers, but people knew that the movie existed by the time it was released.

 

The movie that is going through the same type of marketing is Oliver Stone's movie about the World Trade Center. In New York, Fox News even told you what theaters were playing the trailers.

 

Any filmmaker would love to have that type of marketing.

 

Plus Pirates, has nothing to compete against except maybe Superman. The only other movies that came out this weekend are smaller movies.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." H. L. Mencken

 

Cynical but true, although I don't have a problem necessarily with "dumb fun"... as long as it actually IS fun and not just dumb. I just don't get why so many of these "popcorn" entertainments these days run over 2 1/2 hours.

[Guest kev5000]

I agree, I don't understand why these "blockbusters" have to be over two hours long.

 

I remember when making a three hour long movie was the death of your movie, because you can only have a limited amount of screenings each day on a single screen.

 

But the multiplex changed that. They just put the same three hour movie on three screens in the multiplex. :)

[David Mullen ASC]

A long running time makes sense for an epic drama or something, if it needs to be that long to do justice to the subject matter or source material, but we're talking about lightweight Hollywood fantasy here, not an adaptation of "Lord of the Rings"...

 

Even though I enjoyed Jackson's "King Kong" I think it only demonstrated the strength of the original movie in terms of what it could accomplish in 100 minutes; practically every new thing Jackson added was what needed trimming the most.

[Kyle Polensky]

personally, i hate movie critics. they see so many movies that they become extremely cynical. i agree N_Chaszeyka, paying 6.50 to get to see a multi-million dollar project is worth almost any movie.

 

yeah, what is with all these long movies now? sure, some movies need the long playing-time (Lord of the Rings), but now every movie is going for the 3-hour length, and they dont need it. are the editors so unskilled that the can't edit down to a good length and get rid of all the extra crap they dont need? it's better to leave the audience wanting more than making them want it to end . . .

 

and as a little side note, a three-hour plus movie kills your day. you can go to a nice two-hour movie and leave entertained and refreshed, not dead-tired from sitting in the same position too long.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Will I be castrated for saying I liked it? ;-) Normally I don't go for the big blockbuster movies at all, but I really think this one is fun. Sure the plot has holes....I didn't go into thinking it would be a tightly scripted mind-bender. The special effects are really good....exactly what you'd expect for their budget. I know, I know...this is exactly the type of film that is killing the spirit of the American and dare we say World cinema, but hey, sometimes I enjoy a couple hours of rather mindless fantasy entertainment.

 

Congratulations Italy!!!!

 

Chad

[Guest]

Curious....does any one know of a film that won the Oscar for best picture, and was also the number one grossing movie at the box office for the same year?

 

R,

[Chad Stockfleth]

Curious....does any one know of a film that won the Oscar for best picture, and was also the number one grossing movie at the box office for the same year?

 

R,

 

I think Return of the King would fit that criteria.

[Dan Goulder]

Curious....does any one know of a film that won the Oscar for best picture, and was also the number one grossing movie at the box office for the same year?

Titanic and Forrest Gump

[Guest]

Ah yes of course I should have thought of Return of The King and Titanic. Thanks.

 

Now, will Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, achieve this lofty honour :)

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't have a problem with critical response not matching general public attitudes, nor awards not matching box office success. I'd be more suspect of awards and critics if they did fall in lock-step with whatever was the most popular at the box office.

 

For everyone who thinks movies critics are too snobby, they should realize that there a lot of people who feel that critics are too soft on these blockbusters and not mean enough!

[Max Jacoby]

The marketers douped that many people?

 

In that case the public is either very dumb, or the marketers are very smart.

How else do you explain that 'Pearl Harbor' had a 70M opening weekend? Of course after that first weekend, when word-to-mouth got around how bad it really was, the box office dropped dramatically.

 

'Piarates 2' had everything going for in the public's mind: its the sequel to a very popular movie, it has stars, the awareness is very high and it played on over 4000 screens. If you went to the cinema this weekend it was hard NOT to go see it.

 

My local multiplex had some 13 screenings a day.

[Brad Grimmett]

In that case the public is either very dumb, or the marketers are very smart.

 

R,

Uh, yeah.....are you just figuring this out?

[Guest]

"Uh, yeah.....are you just figuring this out?"

 

Well which is it? The public is dumb or the marketers are smart?

 

R,

[Josh Bass]

I remember when I made the same comment about box office/movie quality not being related in another thread, and Richard made a snide remark to me in return. But I'm still right.

 

And I think it's combination of both.

 

I think people don't read reviews, a lot of the time. Not that reviews are everything, but if you read three or four negative reviews of a film from publications you respect, that's not a good sign for the film.

 

I don't think the public is very "aware" of things outside of what's marketed/publicized on TV/radio. For instance, occasionally an indie will break out and become huge (lost in translation), but most stuff goes under the radar unless it's got commercials all over the place.

[Dan Goulder]

I don't think the public is very "aware" of things outside of what's marketed/publicized on TV/radio.

Iraq and Bush's reelection would be two prominent examples of that.

[Guest Ian Marks]

So why are characters from the first movie, who are now supposed to be mortals, showing up as immortals in the second movie (with all the same characteristics as in the first movie, you shoot them and they don't die, they turn into skeletons in the moonlight)?

 

Did you see the same movie I did? The characters to whom you refer, Sparrow and his returning crew, are all mortal, and to make the point one of the crew members even makes reference to this. Only the monkey is undead here, and that fact plays no part in the story except to make him worth bartering to the Voodoo Lady with the blue teeth.

 

There are so many holes like that in the film, things that make no sense other than to give Jerry Bruckheimer a chance to do more special effects. I can't talk about any of the other glaring holes in "movie truth" without giving away too much of the plot. Suffice to say, I was really pissed off that so much talent was wasted on such a horribly cobbled together story.

 

Okay, so it was a case of cramming too many plot lines into a movie... and I'd be the first to say that the movie could have benefited from some simplification and a bit of trimming, BUT... it was not the stinker that many people want to make it out to be. I was thoroughly entertained from start to finish. As this is a cinematography board, I'll just point out the the cinematography, along with the effects, and production values in general, were great.