subgeek's Journal: dead man's chest

short version:

dead man's chest is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

nearly as short version:

there are fun spectacles throughout the movie. it's fun in parts. it is not very cohesive as a complete work. the plot is pretty weak. it is two and a half hours long, and feels like it is.

more opinions (maybe spoilers):

it's disappointing that the whole movie felt like a set up for the third one. i suppose there's a small chance that watching this one back to back with the next one will make it better, but i'm not too hopeful. the next movie might still be good. davy jones looks neat, but i wish it had been resolved in one movie.

Fun movie

[ces]

But my expectations weren't that high to begin with.

The first one was by far the better film.

I enjoyed it.

[Short Circuit]

It did have a plot. In fact, it had several plots, one for most of the characters who returned from the first movie. It wasn't really about any one character, or even pair of characters. It was about each individual character's story, and how those stories intertwined.

Yeah, I didn't care how the ending of Dead Man's Chest demands that one watch the next movie. However, it left some key characters in positions that should make for a wonderful third movie.

One caveat...Dead Man's chest is not a movie out o

Re:I enjoyed it.

[elmegil]

Dead Man's chest is not a movie out of Disney's normal formula.

Yes. And no. I HATED the fat/skinny duo playing "Apple Dumpling Gang" all the effin time. The movie did NOT need that much slapstick leavening to lighten the mood. Only slightly better than Jar Jar.

My take

[FortKnox]

When you have a fantastic film and make a sequel, you are too tempted to make it 'even more fantastic' (like some battle scenes, etc...) which takes away from the suspension of disbelief and makes it seem a little 'too much'.

It was fun, funny, but a total setup, like you said.

Bah.

[Planesdragon]

It was a fun movie. It was supposed to be a fun movie first and foremost. No epic storyline. No deep romance. No childhood nostalga or idealism. It succeeded in being fun, in a way that other recent films (Superman, Matrix, X-Men) have not.

Considering the grosses, I think most of the country agrees with me.

Re:Bah.

[subgeek]

and it fails where the first one succeeded. the fact that the american masses are drawn to anything is in no way a trustworthy endorsement of its quality. then again, perhaps they feel the way it seems to me that you do, that in spite of its many faults, dead man's chest is worth seeing. but then the grosses include both the satisfied and unsatisfied viewers.

things i liked:
the characters were great in design and execution, even if a couple were pretty stereotypical.
the spectacle of the thing was enjoyabl

Re:Bah.

[elmegil]

Superman was far more cohesive and "moving", but I'd agree Dead Man's Chest was more entertaining.