Critics Be Damned!

[Leo Anthony Vale]

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,

 

---Comedies don't get the 'Best Picture' Oscar.

 

The best picture must have gravity and a sense of moral uplift.

A noble feel good movie. 'Ghandi' is the ideal best Picture.

 

You might try to counter with 'Forrest Gump', an essay on the virtues of being dumb.

Maybe that just proves it wasn't particularly funny.

 

And if all those people didn't die at the end of 'Titanic'.

 

 

---LV

[Michael Collier]

The marketers douped that many people?

 

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

 

Its the built in audience. First Johnny Depp will bring in at least 10Mil opening weekend on most films. There are just that many people who want to see him. Kira Knightly would definatley get me in theaters. Then you have the success of the first one to bring people in. My sister, who was 15 when the first came out, saw it in theaters with various friends 6 or 7 times, and she wasnt the only one. So take those people who would have seen it if it was 2 1/2 hours of jack staring vacantly on a boat, add the parents and friends they bring and you have opening weekend bonanza. I think the best test is the opening weekend to 3d weekend ratio. A low ratio usually means a better film than one that opens to 70mil and then makes 2 mil its 3d weekend.

 

and yes, proper marketing could sell a used car on fire.

[Guest Paul Wizikowski]

You'll never find a movie all will like. And critics tend view films only through the same filter that the Oscar "Best Pic's" are. Personally, I enjoy wild adventures of the imagination. And I loved this one. The thing I really liked was the atmosphere that Depp's character created. He really made the film. And I loved that they kept that "air" in this sequel. It felt like a part of the same story. My only qualms are in that the film did take to long. It felt long. And on that same note it felt like a TV show awaiting its next episode, there was little to no resolution to the plot. Which is fine because they are trying create that same desire to pull their audience back to the final film but (and this brings me to my second issue) there were no side bars or subplots going on that could get some resolution at the end of this one for a sense of satisfaction. I would have liked some internal conflict or a more heavy conflict between Bloom and Knightley (**Spoiler Alert**in reference to Knightley kissing Depp and Bloom noticing it from a distance and then later in the boat he gives her the evil eye). Unfortunatly even the little that was there wasn't resolved. Anyways, bottom line, its fun, funny, it looks great beginning to end. I'd ride again.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

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

 

 

I remember Cinefantasique quoting this to prove it wrong in their review of KING KONG LIVES (and the 76 KK movie).

[Rik Andino]

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.

 

Wow you really respect the public...

I got a newsflash for you--

Me and you and everyone else are part of the public.

 

With the internet and the media reaching out to the more places than ever before

Many people are aware of alot of these small indie films...

The problem is they can't go see them because usually they're only playing in NY or LA

They sometimes play at a cinema in a major US city for a week or two...

But usually the majority of the American movie going public isn't close any cinemas showing good indie films

That's why many indie films don't do big box-office business.

 

Meanwhile the Cineplexes play the big studio films for months...

So a mediocre film with big studio backing can rake in millions.

[Tim Carroll]

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.

 

When the "rule" is established in the first movie, and then blatantly broken in the second movie, that to me, as an actor and director with twenty years of experience in theater and film, that to me is insulting. I am referring to the monkey. When he first appeared in this movie as an immortal, it took me out of the story for a minute as my mind raced back to the first film and said, "Wait a minute, he was made mortal with the rest of the crew. . ." A good director and a good screenplay does not let that happen, period.

 

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.

 

I never said anything bad about the special effects, or the cinematography. The story on the other hand, was garbage. Please stop reading this if you have not seen the movie yet, as I do not want to spoil anything for someone who is still planning on seeing it. When they kill off one of the main characters, and then in the next scene say, "Let's all go and get him back." it really kills the dramatic effect of his death. And then to follow that up with the reappearance of a main character that was killed in the climax of the first movie, really makes the audience feel, "Why should I care about what happens to any of these people, even if the worst happens, and they are killed, the stupid screenwriter will just bring them back whenever he can't find a creative way to solve a plot problem."

 

If the movie did that once in the two plus hours, I would say, okay I'll cut them some slack, but they did this repeatedly, and that to me is the sign of laziness and an over-dependence on special effects to fill the void left by lousy screenwriting.

 

-Tim

[Rik Andino]

I am referring to the monkey. When he first appeared in this movie as an immortal, it took me out of the story for a minute as my mind raced back to the first film and said, "Wait a minute, he was made mortal with the rest of the crew. . ." A good director and a good screenplay does not let that happen, period.

 

You didn't see the whole movie--the first one that is...

If you've stood past the credit you'd seen it what happens...

 

Go rent the First Pirates of the Caribbean...

And see it until the end--that means past the credits...

Then and only then you'll get it.

 

That's why I don't walk out of a film until the screen goes blank.

[Guest kev5000]

I'm glad the movie made the money it did. Its called the movie business. Who wants to be part of a movie thats a flop and doesn't even make it to video. I'm on film maketing panels and I always tell filmmakers that 10% of movie making is art and the other 90% is business. Oh...and Altman's movie will make its money back easily.

[Max Jacoby]

I'm on film maketing panels and I always tell filmmakers that 10% of movie making is art and the other 90% is business.

I'm afraid I don't share that opinion at all. Not everyone is interested in making commercial films. Luckily here in Europe most governments view cinema as an artform that deserves to be supported and its sucess is not measured by its box office.

[Tim Carroll]

You didn't see the whole movie--the first one that is...

If you've stood past the credit you'd seen it what happens...

 

I stand corrected. I did not see the first movie in the theater, I saw it on DVD, and I did not watch past the end credits, something I usually do when seeing a movie in a theater. I went back and looked at the end of the DVD and you are correct, they explain the "monkey business" in the post credits of "Curse of the Black Pearl".

 

That being said, I still hold my other reservations about the script. And it is not for the reason Ian points out, "too many plot lines", I have no problem with multiple plot lines, that makes a movie engrossing. It is for the reasons I pointed out above, (which I do not want to repeat here as to not give away the plot for those who haven't seen it).

 

-Tim

[Josh Bass]

regarding the unavailability of small/indie films, I agree, but only to an extent. I can't tell you the number of times I've mentioned something that was out that I wanted to see, only to be met by "never heard of it". A lot of people just really aren't aware. It's not like I have some secret source that tells me about these movies; there are reviews right in our major newspaper.

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

I'm glad the movie made the money it did. Its called the movie business. Who wants to be part of a movie thats a flop and doesn't even make it to video. I'm on film maketing panels and I always tell filmmakers that 10% of movie making is art and the other 90% is business. Oh...and Altman's movie will make its money back easily.

 

I´m appaled by this notion. If it were soley for business purposes Í wouldn´t be in this business as there wouldn´t be anything important to tell. All films would be produced to fit the american people ánd that sure doesn´t make me quiver with anticipation.

When I make films I put my sole into it, and no one can tell me that we have to change the script for grossing purposes, let alone 90%!! commercials earns me a living and their sole intention is to sell, nothing wrong with that. I´m babbling on now.......

[Chad Stockfleth]

I´m appaled by this notion. If it were soley for business purposes Í wouldn´t be in this business as there wouldn´t be anything important to tell. All films would be produced to fit the american people ánd that sure doesn´t make me quiver with anticipation.

When I make films I put my sole into it, and no one can tell me that we have to change the script for grossing purposes, let alone 90%!! commercials earns me a living and their sole intention is to sell, nothing wrong with that. I´m babbling on now.......

 

hehehe...I completely agree (even though I'm an american) but I would be careful with my spelling of soul - as in the essence of your being and sole - the lone thing, or the bottom of your shoe. ;-)

[George Lekovic]

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,

 

Criteria for a 'good' film are different, and certainly, for studio execs The Pirates is the best film ever to land on celuloid. However, success at the box office does not make for the good film across the whole board, nd one can argue that this huge financial success of The Pirates is because of the timing (summer), lead actor, lack of competition (no good movies are out now), success of the prt one, marketed and managed expectations. People naturally flock to movies like that.

 

Along the same lines there are many good movies that have been badly timed, not marketed and without big names - haven't made a lot of money - but that does not make them bad. So if you pick what you're judging and clear what your criteria is it will be easy to say good or bad. Otherwise you're arguing a mood point.

 

Crash was a great movie - had a lot to say - and it's a pity more poeple did not get to see it...

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

hehehe...I completely agree (even though I'm an american) but I would be careful with my spelling of soul - as in the essence of your being and sole - the lone thing, or the bottom of your shoe. ;-)

 

God im sorry... talking about shoes there for a bit :rolleyes: (I put my shoes into my work....!!)

But yes, there are many kinds of good. I love Italian Horror for one, and where´s the true deep art in a film like House by the cemetery? :D

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fredrik Backar FSF

[Guest]

"Luckily here in Europe most governments view cinema as an artform that deserves to be supported and its sucess is not measured by its box office."

 

Oh boy...here's another topic entirely. The Canadian gov't has always taken the exact same approach to film, which is why not a single Canadian can name a single Canadian film (I'm talking about Johny Lunchbox here, not film types). So what we end up with is a constant stream of movies that "have a cause" and no commercial appeal of any kind. Hence as I said in an earlier post, when the Canadian Oscars are handed out, only a tiny tiny few members of the public have ever heard of the films that get the awards. Even though it's the tax payer that paid for them all!!

 

Over at the CBC it's even worse. They get 80% of their budget from the tax payer, so they just make what ever they feel like. Guess what the total number of their shows they get into the top ten of the Neilson ratings each month is zero. Yes zero, not one show. Inspite of their billion dollar budget.

 

What does make the top 10? American shows re-broadcast by the for profit networks.

 

The running joke in the Canadian film industry is that you won't get gov't funding unless your movie is about a blind native woman's struggle to find her lesbianism. I mean every post house I go into that's the same type of line used to describe the movies Telefilm funds in this country.

 

Then the Telefilm people actually wonder why no one sees the movies they fund.

 

R,

[Brad Grimmett]

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

 

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

 

R,

Both of course. I was just making a silly response because I figured you were making a rhetorical comment.

[Guest Ian Marks]

I am referring to the monkey. When he first appeared in this movie as an immortal, it took me out of the story for a minute as my mind raced back to the first film and said, "Wait a minute, he was made mortal with the rest of the crew. . ."

 

Okay, I have to concede that I too had a moment with the undead monkey where I was "pulled out" of the movie. It went something like this: Whaa??? Oh, I guess the monkey didn't get, er, "undeadified," but everyone else did. Come to think of it, if the men were "cured" of their immortality because the Curse of the Black Pearl, why wasn't the monkey cured too? So, Tim, I'm going to say you were right about this after all. And I agree about setting up "rules" in one movie and then breaking them in the sequel. Bad idea.

 

When they kill off one of the main characters, and then in the next scene say, "Let's all go and get him back." it really kills the dramatic effect of his death. And then to follow that up with the reappearance of a main character that was killed in the climax of the first movie, really makes the audience feel, "Why should I care about what happens to any of these people, even if the worst happens, and they are killed, the stupid screenwriter will just bring them back whenever he can't find a creative way to solve a plot problem."

 

Also agreed. There were about a dozen moments in the movie where I wanted to say "Aw, come on..." or "you can't do that" but they passed by so quickly and I was so engrossed that I quickly forgot them. But yeah, on second thought, why are all the characters running around trying to save their friends, or save their own, if they can just be ressurected later on? Wazzupwidat?

 

In an unrelated matter, I understand that Disney is making big cutbacks in their motion picture division, just as POTC:DMC is doing record business...