Welcome to Gaia! ::

So a buddy of mine and I went to see PotC3 last night, mostly because we both wanted something to do. (Hey, it's a week after graduation, so no one else is in town.)

Anyway, I hated the last one so I went in with rather low expectations. Even in that state, the movie underwhelmed me. It was 90% exposition - the vast majority of the plot was communicated through monologue as opposed to actually showing the audience anything. Furthermore, it had way too many plot twists that had really no impact on the resolution of the movie. And when the action actually started, it was incredibly predictable.

And then there are a number of smaller quibbles I could make about it, but I don't want to be a ranting fanboy redface

Anyone else who saw the movie want to share opinions?

I didn't see it, but I will say the first and second movies were a couple of the most boring films I'd ever seen. I really tried to like the first one. I went to the second because I assumed it would be good enough to give me a sense of appreciation for the first (it's happened before...I didn't like the first Spider-man until I saw the second one, but now I enjoy it a lot).

I can tell from the trailer they're trying to make this third one as "extreme" as possible--incredible special effects, absurd battles, and CGI graphics galore. But that's not what makes a good story. The fact remains that I don't much care about any of the characters, including Jack, and much of the story is so outrageous and unbelievable that I feel completely disconnected from it. I'm not trying to flame the movie without having seen it, but I'm wondering if anyone might allay my fears...if it's worth watching at all.

As far as swashbuckling adventure films go, the first and third Indiana Jones films have not been topped. This is in part because they both had great stories and characters that mattered, and they never felt too out of reach to the viewer. Yes, they had the special effects and unrealistic stunts, but they managed to be somehow believable because the world was so intelligently crafted and grounded in reality. I love pirates, but PotC really was a missed opportunity; I feel as though they opted for silly special effects and bizarre comedy (through the character of Jack) rather than a really grounded plot. If PotC 3 really is as good as people say it is, it might just redeem the whole trilogy for jaded filmgoers like me.

I've heard the third one's about 3 hours. I want to see it because I try to keep an open mind about these things, but I'll wait for the DVD release.

i work at a movie theater, so i need to see every movie we have if guests have questions. i ended up seeing in three times. two for those three times i fell asleep.
The plot just didnt seem so bode well together, and the writters tried to make Kira Knightly's character bigger and more important than she really is. The who idea of her becoming a captian and teh the king and was thought to be Calipso (sp?) just seemd so stupid and pointless.
Then Orlando. Sweet Orlando. He just cant act. All he is, is a pretty face. He's not that convincing as a pirate, and i felt his role was too small in this movie and his acting was poor as usual.
I just dont think this Pirate movie lived up to it's expectations, and if they do a 4,5,and 6 as planned they will just be stretching it.

The best part of that movie was at the end of the credits when you see the son. it gives me hope that Kira and Orlando will retire their pirate swords and guns, and let a new boy take over as a pirate. if they do do another Pirates movie.

It was too effening long

Ah, but you miss the point. When people say "It's too long," they really mean "it's too long for what it is." Fact is, the last 2 PotC movies could have been trimmed into one enjoyable 2.5 hour movie. It didn't need to be broken up into two, and the last act certainly didn't need to be extended to epic length.

The act of padding this movie to three hours is what caused it to be deficient when compared to the first one. By extending the length, they have to create more plot that then needs to be resolved - giving rise to the plot holes you alluded to. Also by shortening it, the action that was there would have become a proportionally larger part of the experience - creating more action by trimming the slow parts. The discipline of shortening the movie would have given rise to a better film by forcing the director to only do what would be necessary to tell the story and explain the characters. Padding it, on the other hand, weakened the overall story.

In short, the movie was actually too long.