Pirates of the caribbean trilogy.

Rugby man.

What did everyone think of the trilogy? I personally thought they were 3 of the best movies I've ever seen.

ps, new here, wow alot of sub forums ,don't know really where to start! :eek:

Eirebear

The first one was a brilliant watch, and still is for that matter.
The second one was a bit dull.
The third one was god damn awful.

Its almost as if they took their lead from the Matrix Trilogy when you look at it.

Black Swan

It was interesting to view how the Fx evolved from the first to the third film. It was almost as if they were competing with themselves to go more elaborate with each successive film?

cabrwab

Eirebear wrote: »

Its almost as if they took their lead from the Matrix Trilogy when you look at it.

Kinda true!
Was given the 3rd one for xmas on doovd, i didn't think it was as bad as i was told, but with the first one to live up to it'd be difficult!

Shryke

The first one was great. I found the second good with one especially fantastic scene. The third was watery piss.
As a trilogy they don't stand out from the crowd which is unfortunate.

Karl Hungus

Rugby man. wrote: »

I personally thought they were 3 of the best movies I've ever seen.

See more movies.

I loved the first film, but the sequels were terrible. Considering that the third begun filming without a finished script, it's not too surprising.

Galvasean

First one was great fun.
Second one had good parts but could have done with being about an hour shorter.
Third one took all the worst parts of the second one, magnified them and forgot all the good stuff.

niallon

First one i can't fault, except for Orlando Bloom's hoorendous performance.

Second, immediately disliked it. I can remember walking out of the UCI with one thing in my head, this isn't the middle of a trilogy, Black Pearl had an ending, this one is running into the second. This is the first half of a sequel. I felt robbed.

As regards the 3rd? Went to see it in the Savoy, didn't help that there was a half hour intermission in a film that was already ridiculously overlong. Then we had the attack of the 40ft woman and I nearly walked out, only for the fact that I'd already invested over an hour and a tenor. It is to this day one of the only films I haven't re watched after seeing in the cinema. Even the ones that have disappointed me most I've usually given a second viewing to be fair, this particular mess I know could only further take away my faith in modern filmmaking.

Karl Hungus

I think a part of what made the first film so great and well written was that as I read it, it had actually been rejected by the studio a few times, and had subsequently been re-written a few times over the course of a few years. The sequels were pretty much rush jobs, and the 3rd having started filming without a finished script left no room for any refinement what so ever.

niallon

I honestly couldn't tell you a single plot point from the third if you asked. I was just utterly lost in the whole mess. A particular friend of mine actually blurted out during his viewing "Has anybody got any idea what the f**k is going on?"

Wish I'd thought of that!

Tusky

First one was great, second was mediocre and the third one a mess.

Dont be at yourself

I think people are being too kind here!

The first one wasn't great - as a big-budget blockbuster, it was all over the place, with little in the way of memorable set pieces. The production values were top-class, but if it weren't for Johnny Depp hamming it up, it would have been utterly forgetable.

The less said about the 3rd installment, the better.

Xavi6

I loved the first one. Depp was refreshingly funny and the plot was pretty good. Knightly looked damn fine too.

By the time the third one came around though Depp was annoying the hell outta me. It was also unnecessarily long. That story could have fitted into 90 minutes.

Dont be at yourself

That story

Story? What story??

bluto63

I think the 3rd one was better than the second, despite the horrible ending

where Bloom and Knightly get married during fighting

. But of course they both pale in comparison to the first

monkeyfudge

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think people are being too kind here!

The first one wasn't great - as a big-budget blockbuster, it was all over the place, with little in the way of memorable set pieces. The production values were top-class, but if it weren't for Johnny Depp hamming it up, it would have been utterly forgetable.

The less said about the 3rd installment, the better.

Yep. The first one was enjoyable enough but the plot was utterly stupid... they go out of their way to dick around with Barbosa and the pirates attempts to lift the evil curse, and make themselves mortal again for no real reason at all.

JangoFett

There would have been no sequels if not for Depp's performance in the first

But overall its an enjoyable trilogy, nothing spectacular but its really enjoyable!

pennykels

I loved the 1st film have seen it well... a few times (every night for bout a year, yup i need a social life) anywho. There have been rumours of a 4th film. About the fountain of youth. Johnny siad he'd do another but keira and orlando arent up for it (thank god) so it'l be all about jack. Just the way it should be

Basq

Galvasean wrote: »

First one was great fun.
Second one had good parts but could have done with being about an hour shorter.
Third one took all the worst parts of the second one, magnified them and forgot all the good stuff.

Couldn't have said it better myself.. own the first two on DVD but couldn't watch the third one again.

Vic Vinegar

Galvasean wrote: »

First one was great fun.
Second one had good parts but could have done with being about an hour shorter.
Third one took all the worst parts of the second one, magnified them and forgot all the good stuff.

Class! that's spot on & funny....

Galvasean

mountain lips wrote: »

Class! that's spot on & funny....

It wasn't funny at the time! :mad:
Sadly the only Pirates movie I DIDN'T see in the cinema was the first one.

Sanjuro

The first Pirates film was pretty poor, save some interest garnered from Depp and Rush. The second was awful. Even Depp was rubbish. And the third film is a complete mess. Awful trilogy.

johnny_ultimate

The first one was a refreshingly funny and action packed blockbuster, which kind of came out of nowhere. I remember being extremely pessimistic beforehand, as I had little hope of a good movie coming out of something based on a theme park ride.
The second had some cartoonie action sequences which were a lot of fun, but apart from that suffered from an extremely weak story and focus on Kiera, Orlando and the others - characters that are very forgettable and annoying.

To quote Spinal Tap, part 3 = **** sandwhich. Pretty much zero redeeming features.

Once the novelty of the first one wore off (in particular Depp's performance, which was definitely impressive and surprising first time around) the sequels couldn't really hold themselves together.

Pigman II

First one is great (it was like watching Monkey Island* the movie). The Sequels are too long , have too much of the reprehensible Jack SPA-rrow in them and don't really seem to build towards anything. I actually fell asleep during pt3 which says it all really. Plus it says a lot for the quality of your charcters when Orlando Bloom is the most likeable guy in the movie.

*yeah I know Monkey Island is loosely based on POTC theme ride.

Running Bing

Rugby man. wrote: »

What did everyone think of the trilogy? I personally thought they were 3 of the best movies I've ever seen.

ps, new here, wow alot of sub forums ,don't know really where to start! :eek:

Wow, time to broaden your horizons mate (check out film of the week up the top of the page!)


First was a cracking film
Second was an enjoyable, if overlong, romp
Third was unwatchable


On the whole a poor trilogy because a trilogy was'nt necessary. Its a story about a cheeky pirate, a fit bird,a very bland handsome man and ghosts. 2hours is fine.

The guy

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

It was interesting to view how the Fx evolved from the first to the third film. It was almost as if they were competing with themselves to go more elaborate with each successive film?

They unfortunately had to cut back on writing staff though for the third film.

Creature

The first one is quite entertaining but really nothing special. The second one was mediocre. Felt like a total cash in and way too long. I haven't seen the third one and wont be watching it while I still have a brain.

I feel they suffer from being criminally over-rated. Depp was enjoyable in the first one but started to irritate in the next one. Also Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom are two of the worst actors ever. Why they keep getting work baffles me, and that they're becoming bigger and bigger stars by each film saddens me.

MisterAnarchy

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think people are being too kind here!

The first one wasn't great - as a big-budget blockbuster, it was all over the place, with little in the way of memorable set pieces. The production values were top-class, but if it weren't for Johnny Depp hamming it up, it would have been utterly forgetable.

The less said about the 3rd installment, the better.

I agree.
Didnt think much of the original to be honest.
Hammy,cliched and childish .
The first hour was good but then it became silly.
Grand if you are ten years old.

Black Swan

Like it or not, they left the door open for a Pirates IV (Fountain of Youth?).

Galvasean

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Like it or not, they left the door open for a Pirates IV (Fountain of Youth?).

Why wouldn't they? The movies made amazing profits. it's Disney after all.