Print Page | Close Window

One Too Many Barnacles on Its Bottom???

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIEŽ MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 3: AT WIT'S END
Forum Discription: Nominated for Worst Supporting Actor (Orlando Bloom)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1914
Printed Date: October 20 2014 at 7:36pm


Topic: One Too Many Barnacles on Its Bottom???
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: One Too Many Barnacles on Its Bottom???
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 6:59am

AS ONE of THE LAST ACTORS in HOLLYWOOD WHO REFUSED to MAKE MOVIES JUST for MONEY, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000136/ - BUT THIS THIRD FLOGGING of the TIRED http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=197 - FRANCHISE, FOLLOWING on the HEELS of 2006's OVER-LONG and UNDER-ENTERTAINING SECOND ENTRY, LOOKS LIKE 2007's ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of HOW MONEY TALKS (WHILE ORIGINALITY WALKS) in TINSEL TOWN THESE DAZE: "HEY, THE LAST ONE MADE a KILLING, LET's JUST KEEP 'EM COMING...WHADDAYA MEAN WHAT'S THE POINT? IT'LL MAKE MONEY, THAT'S THE POINT!!"

DEPP: "We're lookin' at big bootie, indeed , me matie -- 

But to spot the point of makin' a third movie, we'll need 

way more powerful telescopes!"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 12:22pm

To be fair to MWG, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/ - I checked out Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End on IMDb , and found at this time that nearly 900 people have voted for it.  No user comments have been posted as yet, but http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/board/nest/74788327 - one thread on the message board speculates that these people are fanboys.

Going over to Rotten Tomatoes' webpage for At World's End, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pirates_of_the_caribbean_3/reviews_users.php - I checked out what currently are 64 user reviews .  One of them claims they rated the movie based on the trailer, and will come back if his or her view changed after seeing it.

So, MWG seems to be correct in the number of fanboys who rate a movie beforehand on IMDb.  However, this still ignores the great probability that many of the industry people who worked on the film rated it, and it also ignores the weighted rating system IMDb employs that, over time, levels out a films rating.

Also, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/ratings - check out how many people gave it a one  before its release.  Looks like a few of the haters vote as early as the fanboys.



Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 1:43pm

I never expected THIS to be on the list...really, my jaw dropped when I saw this. This might turn out to be good.

BTW, this film was actually shot back-to-back with "Dead Man's Chest"

(Gee, you pick this over 'Thr3e', a real piece of turd I've been telling you about now for a few months, which is now out on video. Shame on you, HeadRazz. Shame! Shame!)

Response from Head RAZZberry: The total box office for THR3E, according to B.O. MoJo, was $1,008,849 -- Not large enough to argue that many people even saw it, but not small enough to be a spectacular embarrassment like DIRTY LOVE (which grossed all of $58,000). Also, I think you're getting Worst Movie of the Weak and Worst New Movie on DVD This Weak confused. TH3E has already been on DVD for nearly a month at this time. The DVD title for this week (May 22, 2007) is EPIC MOVIE, which grossed around $40 million and, from any perspective, is rated one of 2007's biggest disappointments...



-------------


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 2:12pm

I don't know about this being a RAZZIE contender at all, but I'll still agree with you on this one thing, Head RAZZ. Johnny Depp doesn't do any movies unless it's just for money, but he's not the only one out there that's like that. There's Tom Cruise, and hey, look where he ended up last year. But Johnny Depp is well different from Tom Cruise on many things. I'm pretty sure we all know that.

It hits selected theaters May 24, then hits theaters nationwide May 25. It's going to be a Box Office Hit like the first two, but it's going to be the weakest of the three. Anyway, what about this film, BUG? You think we should wait until critics reviews are out? I'll wait to see.

But clearly, I, like everyone else, was disappointed with the ending of the second one. But, the second one won the Best Achievents in Visual Effects Oscar, even though that didnt matter at all, but you admit that it had good visual effects though. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: BUG was the other title under consideration as Worst of the Weak -- But it's currently got a 64% FAVORABLE Rating at RT ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bug/ - LINK ) and looks like a deliberately hokey horror "homage."

I knew when I picked PIRATES 3 it would be controversial (after all, the previous entry, sucky though it was, had the biggest-ever Opening Weekend until SPIDEY 3 came along). I chose AT WIT'S END in large part because it is so emblematic of what's wrong with Hollywood right now: A movie made for the sole purpose of making money. If it's at all like PIRATES 2, it will have a plot no one can follow, loud and overly-elaborate stunt sequences popping up like clockwork every 7 minutes or so, and dialogue that could have written by a team of monkeys endlessly shown the DVD versions of the first two PIRATES movies. Sadly, PIRATES 3 will also likely end up one of this year's Top Five box office draws...



-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 8:48am

But weren't they suppose to make a trilogy hence not trying to make money but trying to make a movie? It's just like Harry Potter or The Matrix Trilogy. If they make a Finding Nemo 2, yeah, that's for the money but this movie will end at the 3rd...unless it will make money (which they will) and will consider a 4th movie like Spider-Man, which is already considered to have a 4th movie. Anyway, I don't know why people didn't like the ending of the 2nd. It was great! A cliffhanger! What more do you want?! Yeah, and I think this sequel will beat the 2nd movie.

Response from Head RAZZberry: It is my understanding that the second and third PIRATE films (which were shot concurrently) were not planned from the git-go, but came about because of the first film's unexpected success. As for comparing them to the HARRY POTTER franchise, the POTTER films are based on a series of novels which author J.K. Rowling clearly said from her first volume was intended to be a series of seven books, with each book following the characters through one year at Hogwart's. Also, anyone who would compare the magical joy of HARRY POTTER (both the books and the movies) to the mechanical money-making enterprise that is Disney's PIRATE movies doesn't know good film-making (or writing) when they see it... 



-------------


Posted By: ArtGirl138
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 10:40am

Okay, regardless of what the critics say, I'm seeing this, just to get some closure (gimme a break, I'm an obsessed fan!).

I WILL admit, though...Dead Man's Chest was disappointing. Not horrible, but not up to the standards of the first one.



-------------
Self-Proclaimed Cartoon Geek


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 1:21pm

I'm going to see it for closure, too. 

Personally, I liked Dead Man's Chest about the same as I liked Curse of the Black Pearl, but for different reasons.  CotBP had a solid story, Depp was brilliant channeling Keith Richards into a pirate, and the whole thing was fun, but the pacing dragged in a number of parts.  There were no problems with pacing with DMC, though.  Many fun scenes, all coming rapid fire, great ideas, but there wasn't much of a story, and it felt like overload at times.  And although some of you will disagree, for me there seemed a couple of times where Depp channeled Willie Wonka instead of Keith Richards.

I want to see Jack Sparrow and the end of this trilogy, but I don't put it on the same level as Harry Potter, and it's nowhere close to Lord of the Rings.  Whether it's razzable or not remains to be seen, but it needs to be better than DMC, and the ending better be as good as or better than CotBP.  Special effects and funny scenes don't alone make a good story.



Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: May 22 2007 at 12:52pm
I came on here, and when I saw this movie was on this forum, I was like: "YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!" I'll still go see it, but you can't blame Johnny Depp for terrible acting, which I haven't seen since FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, BLOW, and FROM HELL, not to forget, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Those three films disappointed me a whole lot. But I guess there's every reason to blame Johnny Depp for deciding to refuse to do movies unless it's about BIG money.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: May 23 2007 at 1:52pm

Right now Disney seems to be on the fence whether or not to continue onward after this one, so if this makes anywhere near the previous one opening weekend, expect them to plow right ahead without looking.  There may be about one or two more stories that could be told, but they would have to be done carefully and thoughtfully if they want to keep the audience.   

 

Thus, you do have to appreciate that Walt was himself smart enough to not run things into the ground over and over again during his career, that he knew his viewers wanted a different experience each time (best exemplified in his summation when distributors were begging for a Snow White sequel:  "You can't build on dwarfs with more dwarfs.").     



Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: May 24 2007 at 8:49am

I just glanced at the headline reviews on rotten tomatoes, a few mentioned that Depp gives a good performance, and I read some praise for the always-excellent Geoffrey Rush. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley didn't seem to be getting many good notices, but it's still early. Bill Nighy is almost as consistently good as Rush, I hope they get a few scenes together.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 26 2007 at 3:19am

I saw this last night: It is too long, and not all that entertaining, but ultimately, not Razzie worthy.

Depp is good, but his performance only serves to highlight how inadequate everyone else is. Orlando Bloom is so wooden I expected someone to mistake him for a plank and force some misbehaving crewman to walk off his back into the foamy brine. Kiera Knightly is as invisble as a pretty woman can be. On the whole, it was an interminable blabfest.

There is one other point I would like to note. We live a few blocks from a 16 screen mega-plex with stadium seating. Last night, exactly 4 films were showing: Pirates 3, Shrek 3 and Spiderman 3 plus one other movie showing on one screen. In effect, 15 screens in a 16 screen theater were showing 3 movies we have seen twice before!



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 26 2007 at 3:23am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

But weren't they suppose to make a trilogy hence not trying to make money but trying to make a movie? It's just like Harry Potter or The Matrix Trilogy. If they make a Finding Nemo 2, yeah, that's for the money but this movie will end at the 3rd...

The ending of this film very clearly set up a Pirates of the Caribbean 4. I would predict that the subtitle will either be Search for the Fountain of Youth or Another Cynical Raid on Your Wallet.

Incidentally, If moviewizguy really believes that this series was ever intended to be a trilogy, I'd be happy to provide a lengthy list of contradictions between the first film and the other two that perhaps he can explain for us. In fact, there were some puzzling contradictions between the second and third films that would be difficult enough to explain, especially since they were made concurrently.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 27 2007 at 1:16am
Oh, well, the first movie sure looked like it was setting up for a second film. So was The Matrix (I don't know about Terminator or Jurassic Park, though, or Die Hard, or Rush Hour).


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: May 27 2007 at 10:16am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Incidentally, If moviewizguy really believes that this series was ever intended to be a trilogy, I'd be happy to provide a lengthy list of contradictions between the first film and the other two that perhaps he can explain for us. In fact, there were some puzzling contradictions between the second and third films that would be difficult enough to explain, especially since they were made concurrently.

I'd just like to know, what are some of these contradictions? I barely remember much of the plot of DEAD MAN'S CHEST much less any contradicts with the first movie.



Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: May 27 2007 at 1:52pm
I just saw it last night, I agree with SaturnWatcher, it was too long and too talky, but Johnny Depp did his usual good job. I also thought Bill Nighy got a lot out of a character that could have limited a lesser actor. Orlando Bloom was pretty wooden, though. And Rush was ok, not Oscar or razzie worthy as HeadRazz would say.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 27 2007 at 3:49pm
Originally posted by jb razz

 

I'd just like to know, what are some of these contradictions? I barely remember much of the plot of DEAD MAN'S CHEST much less any contradicts with the first movie.

Admittedly, I was somewhat in the same position until I ran across a web blog a couple days ago which listed a number of them. Darned if I can find it again at the moment, but when I do, I will post a link. Either that, or I'm going to have to watch it again. We'll get 3 chances on one of the Turner networks later this week.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: May 28 2007 at 9:55am
I'm going to go out and see this movie with my family, my dad, brothers and sisters. My mom will be gone to work tonight, so I'll see to know that what saturnwatcher's and Sanndman's comments are right. I have read reviews that it was too long, but a pretty good film. I'm going to go see for sure, alright.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 28 2007 at 11:47am

Well, I just seen it. Here's my review if anyone cares:

After Elizabeth, Will, and Captain Barbossa rescue Captain Jack Sparrow from the clutches of the Kraken, they must face their foes, Davey Jones and Lord Cutler Beckett. Beckett, now with control of Jones' heart, forms a dark alliance with him in order to rule the seas and wipe out the last of the Pirates. Now, Jack, Barbossa, Will, Elizabeth, Tia Delma, and crew must call the Pirate Lords from the four corners of the globe, including the infamous Sao Feng, to a gathering that will make their final stand against Beckett, Jones, Norrington, the Flying Dutchman, and the entire East India Trading Company.

I've watched the second film, almost forgetting the first film. I've then rewatched the first film, almost forgetting the second. Now I'm watching the third which remembering only the first film. Did that help me understand any part of this film? Most of it, absolutely not. It was so confusing, I didn't even know what was happening. Okay, well, I needed the internet's help to resolve all of this problem.

*10 minutes later* Okay, I get it now but I really think they should make it clearer for the audience. So, the beginning of the movie was a really good "attention getter" for the audience. You know how they say, if the people don't have fun, you don't? Well, my audience didn't laugh at some certain scenes, and they sounded bored. With that, I was very bored with this movie. In fact, number two could have been boring, but since the audience was actually getting into the movie, I was having fun with the second. So I'm being fair with this third movie.

I could let the boring scenes go away. There were some great action scenes in the film. In this film's third act, whenever you were bored throughout the movie, you could actually forgive it for being boring because in this act, it's really fun and filled with special effects and swashbuckling action!

I liked the weird acting by Johnny Depp. I also think, while not as good as Depp's, that Orlando Bloom's and Keira Knightley's acting were good, if not great. The special effects in this film is really great.

It depends if you'll enjoy this movie. If you have a great audience, you'll probably love this. If you have this boring audience, like I did, you'll be so bored but you'll forgive it for having its last hour really entertaining, although it's a bit too long. 7/10



Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: May 29 2007 at 5:43pm
Well, just saw this movie, and both saturnwatcher and Sanndman were definitely right. It was way too long, but pretty entertaining. I even had a hard time staying seated for a full 3 hours. But I just enjoyed it because the audience did, and I laugh at the scenes that the audience laughed at. I enjoyed the action scenes, and all those thrill scenes in there. Now, I wait until it comes out on DVD, I'll watch it again and then do the "Pirates of the Caribbean" Movie Mania, starting with The Curse of the Black Pearl, then Dead Man's Chest, and finally, At World's End. This Movie Mania thing has run into my family for quite some time. We did it on the whole Star Wars saga, the Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park and X-Men trilogies. We'll also be doing it on the Spider-Man films, when the third one come out on DVD. In this movie, the scene where we see Davy Jone's locker, that scene was filmed in the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, where I live. I would only come back home and see the Jazz lost to the Spurs in Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals, and even hearing about the fans being really dirty on the refs, if some of you know what I'm talking about.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 30 2007 at 10:54am
Great! Well, I'm starting my first movie mania maybe about a day before Harry Potter 5 will be released. I'll watch Harry Potter's 1-4 and then watch the 5th in theaters the next day! I've always wanted to do these kinds of things...I probably might have done it to Police Academy (didn't know if it took 1 or 2 days to watch all 7 movies). I sure could do it with Scary Movie or Jurassic Park if I wanted to.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 30 2007 at 3:43pm

I saw it.  I liked it.  It wasn't great, but it was a good popcorn movie.  It lacked a good storyline, but I didn't get confused, especially after watching Dead Man's Chest before.  After watching Dead Man's Chest, I told my co-workers I bet that the woman who broke Davy Jones' heart would pop up in At Swirlie's End.  I had no ideal how right I was, and I certainly didn't have any idea how that bit would turn out.

Keira Knightley's acting was unbelievable. . . as in my suspension of disbelief was suspended and I failed to take her character seriously in any scene she was in.  She looks great.  Other than that, I found the other actors more than up to the task, and Johnny Depp made the movie.  Even Orlando Bloom, who had the unenviable task of being in love with a woman who appalled him by kissing a scurvy dog like Captain Jack Sparrow and then found out she did it to betray Sparrow to his death, while at the same time keeping secret his decision to rescue his father Bootstrap (good acting by Stellan Skarsgard) from the Flying Dutchman, yes Bloom did a good job.  Not a great job, but a good job.  And yes, again, I didn't get confused about this or all the other stories going on. 

Best moment of the movie for me was watching the Black Pearl sail through the sands of Davy Jones' Locker.  I wonder how they did that?  Worst acting moment was anytime Keira Knightley battled multiple pirates.  Worst moment of the movie was the beginning, with all this pirate song business that wasn't that significant and I felt was completely unnecessary.  I didn't like how it ultimately turned out, and yes, this requires a 4th movie to resolve the last few issues, but it wasn't a bad ending; it just wasn't a great ending. 

Which brings us back to the storyline.  Again, it was a collection of set pieces with nothing compelling binding them together.  Everything just sort of happened.  This makes At Swirlie's End the worst of the three, but a great popcorn movie nonetheless.

So, I won't be voting "for" this one.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: May 31 2007 at 3:42am

So there seems to be a developing consensus:

1. The movie was way too long, but generally entertaining

2. The plot was disjointed

3. Johnny Depp turned in his usual good performance (He said in an interview he enjoys this role)

4. Keira Knightley mailed it in

5. With some disagreement, so did Orlando Bloom

6. There probably will be a Pirates 4

7. It's probably not a viable Razzie contender, although Knightley's performance might at least garner a nomination, or reasonable consideration for one.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Kendan
Date Posted: May 31 2007 at 10:23am
Everyone has forgotten the 1 item that buzzed around this movie...Keith Richards playing Jack's father.  I felt they scripted it pretty well, not giving us a "warm and fuzzy" Disney Daddy/Son moment, but a "so what" kinda moment.  Even better, you don't know it's his father till Jack asks "so how's mum?".  Yeah, I felt Keira Knightly looked the fish-out-of-water in many battle scenes.  She always looks good, though!


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: May 31 2007 at 12:37pm
What's everyone's opinion of Bill Nighy's performance as Davey Jones (Which I thought was great), and Geoffrey Rush's performance as Barbossa ( Which, now that I think about it, was better than I gave it credit for)?


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 01 2007 at 2:24am

Maybe we should call the third installment Pirates of the Caribbean: In Their Own Little World.  At least, that's the opinion I'm left with after reading http://www.boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=2323&p=.htm - the Box Office Mojo interview with Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio , the screenwriters for all three movies.  It pretty much says everything that the critics and we have pointed to as flaws are actually the best part of the movies.  For example, you'll learn "that Elizabeth [Swann] is the protagonist of the overarching story."  And all this time, I thought that Captain Jack Straw was the anti-hero of the whole thing.  Silly me; I've been going to these movies to see Johnny Depp, and I should have been taken in by Keira Knightley instead.  I mean, how can you argue when Rossio tells us "I've never seen a moment of action or a line of dialog or anything that she ever performed that wasn't spot on."  I must be completely out to lunch, because for me, every scene she was in she was not credible.  I mean, if Uma Thurman can get me to believe in her, why can't Keira Knightley?  But I must be wrong, because Rossio and Elliott feel otherwise.

Of course, I could say all I want.  These two are laughing all the way to the bank.  Jointly, they're responsible for two incredibly great films, Aladdin and Shrek.  They're also responsible for 1998's Godzilla, Treasure Planet and the upcoming sequel to National Treasure.  They've never been nominated for a Razzie.  Maybe we should change that this year?

As to Keith Richards, unlike how Elliott and Rossio may feel, I felt Captain Jack's Dad was a wonderful addition to the movie, and Richards did the part very well.  Bill Nighy was tremendous, taking Davy Jones and adding depth to the character despite all the CGI.  Geoffrey Rush is a great actor.  I will add again that Stellan Skarsgard turned in a great performance as Bootstrap Turner. 

But, despite what Elliott and Rossio say, Johnny Depp carried this movie.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 02 2007 at 3:37am
Depp noted in an interview after the first movie that he largely based his portrayal of Jack Sparrow on Keith Richards, noting that "pirates were the rock stars of their day." The inclusion of Richards in this film was a natural inside joke, which was one of the brighter moments of the film.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: June 04 2007 at 3:25pm
I have to disagree with whoever said Johnny Depp wasn't good in From Hell. I thought he was tremendous in that. His accent was spot-on, and his drug induced scenes were convincing. To me that's his most underrated role. As for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Blow, I didn't see either of them, unfortunately.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 04 2007 at 4:59pm

Originally posted by Sanndman228715

I have to disagree with whoever said Johnny Depp wasn't good in From Hell. I thought he was tremendous in that. His accent was spot-on, and his drug induced scenes were convincing. To me that's his most underrated role. As for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Blow, I didn't see either of them, unfortunately.

Agreed, although the movie From Hell itself was a bit of a disappointment.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Budgieboy
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 8:44pm
Honestly I dont think this should be a razzie contender. There are a load worse movies then this one out at the moment. Shrek 3 or FF2 anyone?

The third pirate was a major improvement from the second pirates. If only they had cut the scences between Orlandos character and Keiras Character cause those scenes were honestly sh*thouse. Also they did a big no - no in pirates 3. They started filming without a completed script.


-------------
A friend in need is a bloody nuisence


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 16 2007 at 12:51am
I like Shrek 3 for the most part.  The weakest part, though, was the climax.  Arthur's persuasiveness just wasn't that persuasive.  Despite that one flaw, I liked it, and I certainly liked it a whole lot more than Pirates 3.


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 4:03pm

GOOFS: Continuity: In the 'white desert' scene with Captain Jack Sparrow, it is supposed to be completely wind still. However, Johnny Depp's hair is visibly moving from a slight breeze.

Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow in Walt Disney Pictures' Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Speaking of Jack Sparrow, he still has more movies coming out. There's SWEENEY TODD, coming out January 11, 2008, playing the title character, and re-teaming with Tim Burton in that. With the addition of SWEENEY TODD, it will be the 6th film Johnny Depp and Tim Burton have done together. He has also been rumored to be in SIN CITY 2 and SIN CITY 3 as well, and has two more films in pre-production called THE RUM DIARY and SHANTARAM.



Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 12:29pm

Umm...Head RAZZ, I have one question for ya. Do you know how much PIRATES 3 cost to make? 'Cause after this past weekend, U.S. Box Office for this film has passed the $300 Million mark, and is sitting at $927 Million worldwide. So it looks like it still made money (and high numbers worldwide) while only doing okay in the U.S...  

Response from Head RAZZberry: According to B.O. MoJo, PIRATES 3: AT WIT'S END cost about $300 million to produce ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/ - LINK ). If you add in prints and advertising (which for this title probably topped $75 million) the film's domestic gross fell short of Disney's investment. But with its international numbers at more than twice the US figure (about $625 million) clearly, even by Hollywood's screwy accounting methods, the film did make money... 

 



-------------


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: July 12 2007 at 5:10am
Already they are considering a 4th, with Sparrow perhaps headed for Atlantis.  Didn't we just see Feature Animation tackle that not more than 5 years ago?  Impatience, impatience, impatience... 


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: July 15 2007 at 4:54am
Hey, I posted a review on the film. Here's what I thought about Keira Knightley's performance.

Keira Knightly gives a flat performance. Much like Jessica Biel, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan, Knightly is a B-level actress in the A-list spotlight (even if I do like E! Network's news at 7 p.m., can't they focus on someone other than these actresses). In all honestly, she was adequate AND watchable in the first POTC, but I saw some wear and tear in Dead Man's Chest. This time, her limits as an actress are on display here.

All Knightly's doing here is giving her windpipes an exercise with god-awful overacting, share godawful chemistry with Bloom (which results in an unintentionally hilarious scene that belongs in a soap opera), and deliver a Braveheart-type speech that's supposed to be a rabble-rouser; frankly, it's another example of how much overcompensation she's doing. After sitting through Knightly's tic-ridden performance, which has the gonads to put emotional drama into a film that's basically a Bruckheimer cheesefest (with Depp, Bloom, and Rush delivering the honest-to-goodness goods), I was about to bash my head in.

I'm not hating on her or anything (she was good in Pride and Prejudice), but she's rattled by brains in the POTC films. I don't know, but after seeing her make Tom Cruise look like a believable actor, I'm smelling...Razzies?


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 6:13am
I have yet to see this movie, but I need to!


Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 1:37am

PIRATES #1 was good. PIRATES #2 was OK (but much, much, MUCH too long). PIRATES #3 I have not seen, but I may rent it on video when it comes out (because on DVD, I can pause when I have to go the bathroom or want to get some more popcorn). But is #3 worth the rental? Is it a definitive Worst Picture? Should I ignore it?

Response from Head RAZZberry: While it is every bit as overlong, overloud and "under-logical" as its immediate predecessor, I must admit that, given the other drek Hollywood's been pumping out this year (See our http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1717&PN=1 - COMPLETE LIST of 2007 TITLES ) PIRATES 3: AT WIT'S END is not likely to be among the final five when we announce our 28th Annual RAZZIE Awards nominees next January... 



-------------


Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 2:00am

Disney is probably the worst film company right now. Walt Disney was one of the greatest filmakers of all time, his Snow White captured the imagination of moviegoers, everywhere for all time. But Disney would probably roll in his grave now, seeing what's happened to his company. Okay, the Disney/Pixar films are good, (except the Food Safety Video a.k.a. 'Ratouille' OH I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SPELL THE FILM TITLE!?!).

First there was the teribbly lame humor in "Hannah Montana" (and a Hannah Montana movie is in the works according to Wikipedia), then the stereotypes in "High School Musical" (Disney probably never dreamed of doing crap like that!)  and finally the theatrical release of "High School Musical 3" in 2008, and "HSM 4" in 2009 -- all definitive worst pictures. What are they going to do next, Retirement Home Musical? Got some good lyrics for a musical like that!

A ninety year-old Soy singing:
Did someone see my hearing aids?

A ninety ear old Sharp-gay singing:
Did someone see my dentures?

A ninety year Shy-an singing:
SHUT UP! I'M TRYING TO SLEEP!

Or something like that...fight the power!

 



-------------


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: August 06 2007 at 12:43pm

But it does look like John Lassiter may be starting to turn Feature Animation around with his insistance on high-quality story above everything else: Several of the projects slated for release in the near future--particularly The Princess and the Frog (or whatever the title ends up being) should be good if done properly (although you do still wish Howard Ashman were still around, so we could be a little more confident).  If they gave Lassiter all the marbles over Bob Iger--come on Roy, if you ran the site to get rid of Eisner for a year and a half and essentially succeeded in the end, surely you can do the same for his old-wine-in-a-new-bottle prime minister--perhaps the whole thing could turn around. 

Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

   



-------------


Posted By: Kenny
Date Posted: August 08 2007 at 7:48am
In my opinion, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are BOTH strong Razzie-contenders.

-------------


Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 3:21am

Worst Supporting Actors this year should be:

Jon Voight TRANSFORMERS + BRATZ: THE MOVIE

The entire cast EPIC MOVIE

Paul Rae DADDY DAY CAMP

Lochlyn Munro DADDY DAY CAMP

Patrick Warburton UNDERDOG

Originally posted by Kenny

In my opinion, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are BOTH strong Razzie-contenders.



-------------


Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: September 21 2007 at 8:29am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

The ending of this film very clearly set up a Pirates of the Caribbean 4. I would predict that the subtitle will either be Search for the Fountain of Youth or Another Cynical Raid on Your Wallet.

Incidentally, If moviewizguy really believes that this series was ever intended to be a trilogy, I'd be happy to provide a lengthy list of contradictions between the first film and the other two that perhaps he can explain for us. In fact, there were some puzzling contradictions between the second and third films that would be difficult enough to explain, especially since they were made concurrently.

[/QUOTE

Moviewizguy, does two movie sequels being realeased four years apart ring a bell to you?

Moviewizguy, does two movie sequels being realeased four years apart ring a bell to you?



Posted By: bernbar
Date Posted: September 21 2007 at 9:34am
if you are going to put this movie in with the other nominations you are completely wrong i saw that good luck chuck which currently has a 03% at rt and its not in pink if you nominate this you lost 1 fan


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: December 09 2007 at 4:02am
I wonder why this film is put in the same forums as Bratz and Awake?

I just found this film confusing and a little underwhelming, but it was necessary to end the story started by Pirates 2.

Speaking about a 3rd Pirates Sequel, it'll probably be straight to DVD (like any unnecessary Disney sequels).


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 09 2007 at 6:20am

I'm glad this movie is at least being debated.  Although, yes, it was not as bad as Good Luck Chuck, Bratz or Awake, or for that matter, I Know Who Killed Me, Daddy Day Camp, Are We Done Yet?, Revolver or Epic Movie, there were severe problems with this movie that seem to characterize all the major blockbuster sequels this year.  Of particular concern to me was the mishmash that passed for a script, producing a plot you'd be hard-pressed to describe in one short sentence, and Keira Knightley's acting, which kept me saying "yeah, right" every time I saw her on the screen.  And this doesn't even begin to address "sequel-itis", the problem that very few sequels match the superiority of the originals. 

Yes, I've read that Elliott and Rosso were writing the 3rd installment as it was being filmed, and in this case, the movie shows that rushed attempt.  Saving this movie was how many things were done well.  The directing was superb, Verbinski taking what could have been as bad as any of the movies listed above and, one scene at a time, wringing out the best performances with the best filming and the best special effects he could get.  And most of the other actors gave superb performances, such as Nighy, Depp, Rush, Davenport and Chow.

But I don't think, just because other movies are worse than any particular movie, that we shouldn't at least go over the problems of that particular movie.    If anything, it keeps us on our toes.

If they shoot Pirates 4, I feel it will go to the big screen before it goes to DVD.



-------------


Posted By: Mrs. Magnatech
Date Posted: December 10 2007 at 4:34pm
Keira Knightley for Worst Supporting Actress, definitely. Even the monkey and the parrot out-acted her.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 11 2007 at 3:49pm

Originally posted by Mrs. Magnatech

Keira Knightley for Worst Supporting Actress, definitely. Even the monkey and the parrot out-acted her.



Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 6:51am

Good News to those that liked the movie on the message board: "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" is a semi-finalist in the field of best special visual effects for this year's Academy Awards:

http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117977801.html?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1 - http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117977801.htm l?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1   

 



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 20 2007 at 2:26pm

Pirates 3 is gonna lose to Transformers.  Both movies may be weak if not bad, but the special effects in Transformers were above and beyond anything.

Originally posted by Movie Man

Good News to those that liked the movie on the message board: "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" is a semi-finalist in the field of best special visual effects for this year's Academy Awards:

http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117977801.html?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1 - http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117977801.htm l?nav=news&categoryid=1982&cs=1   

 

 



Posted By: Jack Spencer Jr
Date Posted: January 22 2008 at 1:12pm
Quite frankly, I disliked the first Pirates movie and hated, hated, hated, hated Johnny Depp's performance. The wife liked it, though, so I got dragged to the next two, and was surprisingly entertained by the second. I guess when expectations are lowered to zero, the minor good points of the sequel shone through a bit more. The third one was a bit of a mess, looking like it had maybe two movies worth of plot and double-dealing going on and other things like "Oh, by the way, she's a goddess or something."

That all said, I don't think Bloom deserve this award because I can't even remember his performance, so i couldn't say if it was good or bad.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: January 22 2008 at 2:09pm

I remember Bloom's performance, and it wasn't a match for the others, except for Knightley.  Knightley's performance was unconvincing in the third one.

I don't feel Bloom deserve the nomination, but he got it, and Knightley didn't, so there you go.



Posted By: icegirl
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 8:14am
Honestly, I really liked the movie since I am a very big fan of POTC! Even if it was a little bit longer that it should have been, it really had nice turn overs that kept my eyes into the big screen . I think the movie had good performances (i loved Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush), good sound mixing and very interesting costumes. I really enjoyed it.
As far as for Bloom's performance, he didn't shine but he didn't suck either!


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 1:25pm
I gave 70% to THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL,60% to DEAD'S MEN CHEST,and,50% to this one.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by Vits

I gave 70% to THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL,60% to DEAD'S MEN CHEST,and,50% to this one.
Of course, "Black Pearl" was a very entertaining and original movie ... so of course Hollywood had to go and ruin it with two sequels that sucked and were filled with references from the first movie.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 9:52pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by Vits

I gave 70% to THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL,60% to DEAD'S MEN CHEST,and,50% to this one.
Of course, "Black Pearl" was a very entertaining and original movie ... so of course Hollywood had to go and ruin it with two sequels that sucked and were filled with references from the first movie.

I think the nostalgia helps people like the sequels more. Well, that's why I like watching sequels.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 23 2010 at 6:17am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I think the nostalgia helps people like the sequels more. Well, that's why I like watching sequels.
Better idea: if it's nostalgia you want, just watch the original movie instead of the s*** sequels and remakes that are made to rape the corpse of the original movie for a quick profit. That just makes common sense to me and most of the other posters here. I mean what's going to bring back more childhood memories for you, the original movie or some bastardized piece of s*** that copies and pastes from the original movie? I rest my case.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.



Print Page | Close Window