I was originally very excited to see this movie.

Then I saw it.

Now I'm just left wondering how much better this could have been. The second movie, though not perfect, did set up what could have been an epic finale. What we got just seemed completely rushed. The point of Barbosa coming along was because he had been to The Locker before, so why did they need the map?

Chow Yun-Fat, as you pointed out, was completely underused, begging the question of why he signed up in the first place.

Will and Elizabeth got old quick and I'm glad they won't be popping up in the fourth film. Let's just hope that is better than this was.

I could go on, but that would take up the entire first page of comments. So, I'll end with saying I look forward to your next installment on this debacle of a movie.

Can't agree more with some of the points you and Film Brain make, especially regarding the jarring and unnecessary shift in tone after the second movie, but I do have a few counterarguments.

First of all, "why are they backstabbing each other?" Are you seriously asking me this question? As FB is so quick to point out, they're PIRATES. Admittedly it doesn't suit Will's character very well at all (doubly so because we needed someone to relate to), but I fully expected it from everyone else and for some of us the constantly shifting alliances were as exciting as any action scene. Though, again, there weren't enough of those in this movie (and the climax was a little too long).

Certainly, Johnny Depp got WAY too much screentime in this movie - screentime that could have been used to further develop Chow Yun-Fat. But the scene in The Locker and at World's End is MEANT to be trippy and jarring, [i]because they've sailed to a place that doesn't exist[/i]. It's one of the film's better sequences, especially when you consider that it's the only one that doesn't suffer from the sometimes depressingly bleak tone.

Ultimately I think that after the high bar set by Dead Man's Chest (which, despite its problems, DID manage to make a family-friendly action/comedy movie that was bigger than the first) the sudden shift in style and loss of quality in At World's End is more disappointing than it is bad, because overall it is a good movie. It's like my generation's Return of the Jedi, really.

[quote]The point of Barbosa coming along was because he had been to The Locker before, so why did they need the map?[/quote]

Doesn't the movie explain this? He wasn't taken to the locker, so Jones holds no power over him leaving because he wasn't sent directly by him.

Don't worry, I may be defending this movie, but it's damn confusing, I know. Still a great movie, though.

... what? That explanation doesn't make anything more clear. If that's what was in the movie (which I've seen all three, but wasn't paying that close attention as I'm not a big fan), then there's still no reason for Barbosa to be there other than fan service.

You hit the nail right on the head there. Barbosa's inclusion in this movie is purely and utterly fan service, any way they chose to wedge him in. He was an effective foil to Jack in the first movie, so they thought he'd work for this one too. Problem is, they had to de-claw him in order to make him work in the story, as they already had other villains to carry the plot. So it ends up as one big cringe-worthy (and unfunny) penis measuring contest.

And Barbosa's death was such a good one to start with. Why'd they have to spoil it? T_T

Dude...Prozac.

Eye-bleeding capitals aside, the bit where they fall of the world's end actually reminded me of Eric the Viking, heh heh. Almost expected them to land in Asgard rather than Davy Jones' locker.

Quick! Someone blow the Horn Resounding!

You know what's weird? Before my dad dragged me and my brother and sister to see this movie in theaters, I had never watched or seen the first two Pirate movies. And yet, I knew what was going on and who the characters were and everything. What does that say about the film? Oh, and an interesting thing is that the music in the Pirates movies is similar to the action music in The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride. I'm serious, watch it and listen they're totally similar.

Before I watch this, I wanna put in a word. I think the biggest problem with this movie is that it's just disappointing. The second one had so many cliffhangers, my heart was pounding for the third. And then it was a huge letdown, there weren't as many good jokes, and it had a ton of weird new stuff that is never explained. Thanks for taking a shot at this!!

Watched it, and I agree. Too long and the actions boring, and so little humour! I loved the second one for all its humour and action!

I remember being so excited about this movie...and it failed to leave an impression on me.

It's bad when I better remember the nachos I had while watching the movie than the movie it's self (For the record, those nachos weren't even that great)

I'm sorry Film Brain,but just fuck you.
I never thought I would ever be angry at a review you did,but this just hit a nerve. I'm kid writing this comment,and I was a kid when I saw these movies. I don't care if you don't like it,it's your opinion,but just because it's produced by Disney doesn't mean it can't be violent. Just because the main demographic is children(And I don't even believe that)doesn't mean it can't be gruesome. This wasn't meant for young young,suck-on-a-bib kids,we can handle this,trust me. I just hate it when people think something is to edgy or adult for kids,I know 6 year olds who go to pre-K and can kick my ass in Call of Duty,it's not like this is to much. I might understand it if it disturbed you because you hold Disney as some beloved nostalgic icon from your youth,but times are changing,and come on,if anything that might scar,it has to be seeing Stallone's ass.

Well, it is an opinion based show. If you don't like it, that's fine. But, at the same time, you must realize the point that is being put across and not take it personally. And, just because some kids can understand violence doesn't mean we have to subject them to it.

I take it so personally because he kept saying it.

He kinda of hammered it in, and this isn't subjecting kids to violence in a harsh and bleak way. If they know it's a movie,and they don't freak out when seeing people get back stabbed or shot,and they know it's just acting,that's understanding violence in the simplest form. Subjecting them to violence is exposing them to what it's really like,and this is nothing what it's like(At least that's what I think,I wouldn't know).

What I am taking from FB's point is that they went way to over the top with violence. People being hung,betrayed,a little bloody mess. From what I could tell,he thought that kids shouldn't be seeing this. That being said,PotC isn't really aimed at kids,and they're all rated PG-13,not a really kiddy rating when it comes to parents finding something to watch with them. Also,just because Disney was involved in them doesn't mean it has to be sacred,violence material. Lost was produced by them too,and people killed each,betray one another,and boned all the time. It isn't a seal of kid friendly fun.

Wow yesyouarenice your comment was great I ABSOLUTELY Agree with you and fuck those assholes who thumbed down your comment.

Kids in America need a bit of darkness in their movies...it doesn't hurt them it will make them think a little. Nice comment =)

The problem is is that this movie just failed. As a young adult (hey I'm not saying that i'm a kid but i'm a far shot from adult) who saw this movie i just thought it was bland. Not funny enough to make me laugh, not dark enough to hold any dramatic tension. It hit the the butter zone of suck between gritty and comedic.

You are a moron. It's not because it's Disney (watch some of Disney's EARLY animated films. They are fuckin' DARK), it's not because it's for kids. It's because when you're making the THIRD FILM IN A GOD DAMN TRILOGY, THE AUDIENCE SHOULD KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. If you're throwing a genre curveball at your audience in the third film, you're a terrible film maker. Period. If you haven't laid sufficient groundwork in the first two films so that people know that you're making a tonal shift, then you fail, or you randomly decided to shift, and then you fail.

If your first two films are basically bloodless, lighthearted, and action-packed, your third one should be, as well, or you need to have laid the groundwork. It's basic storytelling. It's not complicated. And if you can't grasp that, then that brings me back to my original point: You are a moron.

Ähm did you not see the giant kraken eat the main protagonist in the second movie? Just because they didn't show it chewing, doesn't mean it didn't happen!

There is nothing worse for kids than the hero diying. You can kill 100 minions for the price of one hero.

True they did bring ack back, but only after one year. That's too little too late.

And like I said already, these films are rated PG-13. All of them. Which means for ages 13 and older. If you are a parent who wants to drag a younger kid in there, watch the damn thing beforehand. Everything else is irresponsible.

Well judging by the maturity level presented in your comment, I think it's pretty obvious you're a kid. Film Brain was validly pointing out that Disney has an established reputation as a family company, and the first two pirate movies were not nearly as dark in tone. Did you even think for a second that maybe a parent might have seen the Disney logo or reasonably expected the movie to be similar in tone to the previous and taken their younger kids to it? Did you even consider that some people prefer not to be exposed to completely unnecessary violence in their entertainment? Of course not, you were too busy acting like an emotionally wounded eleven year old to even consider that. Honestly, from what I could glean from your comment, you're not ready to handle this level of violence, because you can't even figure out how to handle your own emotions.

Honestly though, what really bothers me about your comment is the way you seem to take pride in the way you think you can "handle" gory violence. What in the world makes you think that's something to be proud of? What the hell makes you think 6 year olds should be playing call of duty? News flash kid, that's unhealthy and it actually does have negative ramifications on a persons emotional health, no matter what anybody tells you. You may think I'm full of shit right now, but wait until that six year old is 20 and have him get a full psych eval. Let's see how his subconscious is doing then.

axlryder said it best. The [b]Pirates[/b] series isn't aimed [i]solely[/i] at kids, its aimed at the whole family audience. The kid demographic in this is a little older (I'd say roughly around 8 or older). That said, I have seen the Pirates movies with at least several kids in attendance - it has Disney on the marquee, it has the Disney logo before the film and is based on a ride at Disneyworld. Kids factor into that demographic at least partially.

I don't really have problems with Disney going PG-13: the first two [b]Pirates[/b] and [b]Prince of Persia[/b] were fine. In those movies, much of the violence was fantastical and relatively brief. In [b]At World's End[/b], the film repeatedly uses violence with much more emphasis on pain and stabbing (i.e. Davy Jones twisting Will's mortal wound to cause further pain for a good 10s) for no real reason but to shock.

The hanging sequence is key to this: why is it there? If you were to say "to show Beckett's threat", then what about those two sequences of the Dutchman blowing apart ships under Beckett's command. The imagery used in that opening sequence is of the strongest kind, and it needs to be carefully considered. In the context of the movie, it feels superfluous.

[b]Yesyouarenice:[/b]
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Film Brain has gone too far by touching the Pirates trilogy. Just because he doesn’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s badly written or too dark. I’m not saying that At World’s End is a masterpiece, but it’s one hell of a lot better than Film Brain says it is. You know, I wonder what his next movie is gonna be. Maybe he’ll do Lord of the Rings or Citizen Kane. No, wait, I bet it’s gonna be 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Anyway, back to defending Yesyouarenice.

[b]Mikon:[/b]
First of all, yes, it is because it's Disney. Film Brain says it multiple times that his problem with the dark tone lies within his thought that Disney is an always family-friendly movie making company. But you said so yourself that Disney isn’t always happy happy joy joy sparkling fairytale stories. In fact, you can take almost any random Disney movie and you’ll find something “dark” in it.

[b]Mikon and axlyryder:[/b]
Second, Disney did not throw a curve ball all of a sudden. Does no one remember the hanged bodies at the beginning of the first movie, or the attack on the city or the Endeavour by the undead Black Pearl crew, or the undead in general, for that matter?
And what about the tortured guy that gets his eye eaten out by a crow WHILE HE IS STILL ALIVE at the beginning of the second movie? And let’s not forget the part where another guy’s throat is slit and then thrown overboard because he doesn’t want to join Davy Jones’ crew. Or that scene where Will gets whipped on Davy Jones’ ship.
I could go on, but think I made myself clear. PotC: AWE is not darker in tone compared to the other ones.

Oh, and before anyone starts commenting that most of these scenes are unnecessary violent. They are NOT. They set the tone of the movie and show how dangerous the scenery is and, most importantly, how life was during those dark times.

And to continue with “the sudden switch of ”. Look at what he/she has gone through. Anyone would get treacherous if they’re involved in something where no one can be trusted and have been backstabbed multiple times.

[b]Axlyryder and Film Brain:[/b]
And if people don’t want to be exposed to such violence, why don’t they just look at the PG-13 sign and then walk away. You know, the actual logo that shows to what audience this movie is for. PotC was NEVER meant to be for little children, that’s one of the reasons why nobody thought it would become so popular.

Do your research, Film Brain, it’s right there with the other Wikipedia pages you’ve visited.

Yes, how dare Film Brain do comical movie reviews for the sake of amusing us in our free time? Good God, why are you people so freaking sensitive about the movies you watch? First everyone wanted to burn him at the stake for touching Equilibrium and now it's because of this movie. Are your lives really so shallow that you launch into an indignant bout of violent rage every time someone slights a film you like? They're just movies, people. They're not worth getting this angry over.

Look, I used to like Film Brain. He wasn't the best, but he was entertaining.
But there's a difference between stating your opinion & making fun of a movie and saying that it's a piece of shit like it's a fact. Especially when some of those facts are just plain wrong.

If he would just state his opinion, instead of stating "facts", I couldn't care less if he thinks it's the worst material of entertainment that has ever been produced.

All movie reviews are opinions, genius. The only things in the video that were presented as facts were the comments about the inappropriateness of putting all this murder and evil in a movie based on the silly pirate ride at Disneyland.

You are really comparing this to Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Oddessy.
...
REALLY?

Only in popularity. I meant it as: he started destroying one great movie, I wonder which and when the next one is gonna be.

Like I said: At World's End is not a masterpiece, especially not compared to Citizen Kane and 2001, but it's still a good movie. And I just can't stand that he talks about every "bad" thing like it's a fact instead of his own opinion.

Yes because nothing is more popular and over hyped than Citizen Kane.

And did Matthew ever say that this movie was a piece of crap? He said that it's a disappointing conclusion after all the hype they builded up. And yeah it's not a masterpiece, because masterpieces often don't have that many plotholes and scenes that go absolutely nowhere.

He says with an despising face and tone in his voice that this movie is too dark for the children it wasn't aimed to and stupidly written because they kill off characters "for no reason".
How else am I supposed to interpret that?

With hate, I suppose and not even thinking about what he said and instead write a five paragraph hate mail to him.

But, really I watched this movie yeasterday. Literally, it came from tv in Finland, and I agree it ain't a horrible movie. But there are just sooo many questions that go unanswered and scenes and characters that are just wasted, they had only one good battle sequence at the end, (which in all honesty was epic but the epicness was kinda ruined when they shot a monkey out of a cannon). It wasn't terrible, but disappointing, the franchise deserved more than this.

Besides just just said yourself;

"stupidly written because they kill off characters for no reason."

Are you perhaps thought about the possibility that maybe he is *gasp* right?

Note the quotation marks within that statement. That was meant as sarcasm.

I won't deny that there are holes to be found in the plot, but that's not my problem here.
My main problem is the way Film Brain talks about the movie with that disrespectful tone and not a single good point, while he made multiple mistakes in just these 16 minutes.

First, He just keeps on hammering that this movie is too dark, way darker than the previous ones and therefore not suited for children. But he is the one that clearly missed that little stamp with the characters “PG-13” on it and apparently also missed the scenes I pointed out in my rant underneath the part for Mikon and axlyryder.

Second, he makes multiple times the mistake that the writers were lazy/clunky/whatever he says more about them.
For example, he says the “lazy” reason they want Jack Sparrow back is because he has one of the Pieces-of-Eight. But that’s only the reason they give Sao Feng to convince him to cooperate. The real reason is stated at the end of Pirates 2.

Or the part where he says: “we run out of things to do with Jonathan Pryce, so let’s just kill him, no one will notice”. He says it in a way that his death is useless and only serves as a lazy answer to why he’s later on not in the movie anymore. In fact, he almost says that literally when 4 minutes later he shows [u][b]the actual reason[/b][/u] the writers let him die and why he won’t come back to the world of the living. And I happen to find “he has found peace with being dead” a perfect good reason for that, btw.
Sure, they could have done it some other way, but than his death WOULD have been pointless. The writers weren’t lazy, they made good use of a character they wouldn’t need anymore and even gave him a funeral and let him say goodbye to his daughter.
Same kind of thing goes for Jack Davenport’s James Norrington. Why is it a bad thing that the writers run out of ideas to do with certain characters for the future, so they let him die with a reason and a nicely handled death?

I won’t deny that he was right about a couple of things, like how Jack Sparrow and the Black Pearl ended up in Davy Jones’s locker (I think the peanut-thing is discussable, btw), or how they got to Singapore in the first place.
But these things do not prove that the writers “clearly didn’t know what they were doing”. If that was true, than we would have gotten a completely different movie.

Third, he contradicts himself. He says this movie is much too violent, but he also wanted to see the fight with the Kraken and the death of governor Swann (or at least talks about it like he would have liked to see it).
And right when he said he got bored, because the action is gone, he shows a clip of the Black Pearl attacking the Endeavour.

Fourth, he’s complaining about the “sudden switch” of a couple of characters, but, like I stated in my rant...

Damn you and your keen arguments, I've been driven into a corner!
The truth is, is that I agree with you on many of the things above, but about the fact Film Brain begin angry at this thing, well he is a critic. Critics aren't exactly known for their love and caring. Nitpicking, it's what they do.

But what eats him and me is that so many these things could've been done much better, like Jonathan Pryce's death, they could've [u]shown[/u] it. Maybe a little scene of him discovering the heart or a document about how to kill Davy Jones and [i]then[/i] get killed for it.

But anyway I'm done, I don't wanna keep clutterin' up the comment section.

LOL, sorry man. It's just how I feel about this review.

Yeah, you kinda got a point with the "nitpicking is their thing"-thing and that things could have been handled better, but he could have handled this so much better too. Look at Spoony's review of At World's End. Now that is one that I respect. I disagree, but respect it nonetheless.

btw, I've seen the other part of this review and there Film Brain tries to apologize (kinda) by showing a short counterargument from Welshy, who sees this much more the way I do (including his first line LOL =D).
And, well, I think I'm about to get ready to start forgiving Film Brain.

Anyway, I hope to see you again someday for another discussion. I just love this kind of thing.
Thnx for replying =D.

"I won't kill you because you're just too much fun" The Joker doesn't kill Batman because he enjoys it to much he gives him purpose.

uhhh your head hurts when you have to think in movies???? too bad!!

Also Tom Bombadil wasn't important to the book, so I can totally see why he was left out.

And the Batman thing . . . oh wait, you are just a troll, now everything makes sense!

And oh yeah, it's a movie about man who dresses like a bat to scare criminals and mass-murdering psychopath who puts on clown make-up.

[quote]PotC: AWE is not darker in tone compared to the other ones.[/quote]

Whether something is "darker" or not is not simply down to pure content, but rather the feeling the events portrayed inspire. For example, the hanged bodies you mention at the start of the first movie are certainly gruesome, but the viewer has no feeling of empathy for them. They ping off the subconscious as set pieces, bits of scenery. It can be a little gross, but you can still play it for comedy.

Hanging living breathing children, on the other hand, is tailored specifically to hit us right in our most basic emotions. It makes you feel bad. It's there to say "this is serious, people. Kids are dying. Don't you hate these bad, bad people who are doing this now?"

The tone here is definitely darker, not because the subject matter changes, but because it's purpose does. Because the way it's used does.

Contrast the feeling of the beginning of the first movie with the third. In both there is something very bad happening to an unknown boy. In the first you're given a sense of danger, of adventure and mystery. Something amazing and a little frightening happening. In the last, we begin with a sense of bleakness and senseless brutality, almost hopelessness. A slow shuffle towards death. This is tonal shift. Subject and content the same, but the effect altered.

Helloooooo it was rated PG 13!!!

I want to point out the difference, when talking about the tone of a movie, between "dark" and "gory".

Children's stories and movies with dark tones like Return to Oz (1985) Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and other Disney movies like Old Yeller, Sleeping Beauty,Bambi and the Lion King, also, the work of Ruyard Kipling, etc. are good examples of family films being dark or having heartbreaking endings without being a gore fest. And there is usually a profound life lesson involved.

In this movie, the pirates and a child being hanged, a woman being shot in the head, twisting knives into people, etcetera, seem to be violence for violence sake. The only purpose being "chaos and mayhem" attract a larger audiences.

Or they could go and read review and know what to expect. . . it really bothers me that attitude of ´´ it looked like a kiddie film so I didn't bother to read a review or see the rating`` Which by the way was PG 13.

I agree. People need to give kids more credit.

One thing that I really respect about my old elementary school teacher is that he wasn't afraid to show us movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, even if they weren't meant for kids. He even read us Nicky Cruz' Run Baby Run. The whole book, no censoring.

Yeah, he never told us "drugs are bad", instead he read us a book that tells you, in the most gruesome way possible, WHY drugs are bad and let us decide for ourselves. He didn't tell us "war is bad" either, instead he showed us Saving Private Ryan. All because he respected our intelligence and he wanted us to learn more than just what school teaches us.

It's much better than what my parent's did, trying to shelter me from everything nasty about the world. All [i]that[/i] did was make it harder for me to deal with the bad things in life.

Okay, sure, PotC isn't exactly high art or educational like the stuff I mentioned, though... Not like you need the violence there. *shrug* But well, it's still refreshing seeing a movie about pirates that doesn't try to show the pirates as a bunch of happy fellows who just like to have fun at sea.

At World's End was rated PG-13, wasn't it? A 13-year-old is definitely old enough to see this stuff. I saw worse when I was ten. Sure it was scary at the time, but [i]I got over it.[/i]

This, really and truly, is a great comment. No, really. Not for the content, no that's complete drivel, but just for summing up the emotional retardation of the older people I've read on these comment boards who comment just like this little idiot.
This one at least has an excuse somewhat - depending on his definition of kid mind you - but the older ones I've seen who do this.....they should be ashamed. No argument, no discourse, no rhyme or reason, just "fuck you for not sharing the random collection of brain farts that constitute my idea of an opinion". Classic, thanks kid for putting those who should know better to shame. Gothic Teddy Girl, what age are you per chance?

The hanging scene for example could have matched the tone of the other movies by simple editing - you don't need to see the shot from below the gallows of the bodies violently having their necks snapped, nor the bodies being loaded into carts or any of the other needlessly cruel imagery that's to follow. You could see them lined up, the lever pulled, then hear the sound as we see someone's wincing reaction - same effect, but not nearly as dark. The shift in tone is jarring, and the difference between the first two and this one is clear to see. This also makes the humour the try to force into the flick less effective as it's hard to laugh at the comic relief wacky antics after you've just seen imagery more appropriate for serious dramatisations of just how nasty it was back then. The first two films featured deaths too, but they were relatively bloodless shots of people flying around after cannon strikes and the odd quick stab...certainly no twisting the blade around to make the character suffer more in those.
If you honestly can't see the difference, then you're either a desensitised child like Yesyouarenice - thanks for proving the point of the pro-censorship movement you little turd - or simply don't understand film.

[quote]fuck you for not sharing the random collection of brain farts that constitute my idea of an opinion"[/quote]

I really have to save that one for future use =D

yesyouarenice, you know you can have your opinion on gore and children for all I care, (because you clearly are mature and civil enough to represent the world childrens opinion.) but what about the lack of action and the plot holes in the movie? Hmm?

And on the side note, what kills me about this is the pointlessness of this violence, what point does it serve? Is there ANY reason to show a kid begin hanged? Any reason to show two women getting their brains blown out? To make your villain look more menacing? No, of course there isn't any other reason, but why stop there? How about if Beckett is actually in leaque with Satan? Or maybe he is a rapist, a mass mureder and a pedofile and he had an abusive father? Or how about if he is communist or nazi or a terrorist, or perhaps a communist-nazi terrorist.

I assume YesYouAreNice (heh, ironic name, ain't it?) is just in a bad mood because Mommy took away his copy of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City when she found out about the Hot Coffee mod.

It makes no sense to bash someone over not liking a movie that got 45% on Rotten Tomatoes, even if the IMDB user rating is 7.0/10. Personally, I thought this movie was not only dark, but at times too cartoonish for its own good. Like the shivering monkey and the the antics of those Jack clones. No wonder why Gore Verbinski's directing Rango. xP

We're not bashing him because he doesn't hate this movie, we're bashing him because of his dumb opinion of "gruesome violence and call of duty is ok material for 6 year old kids."

When you say that you are a kid, it only makes your comment sound stupid... -.-'

I have a feeling this review is going to create quite a bit of debate. Give it some time and we shall see...

Even thought I don't always 100% agree with you(as is the case here), I always enjoy your reviews very much FilmBrain because they never fail to entertain.

Yeah, there's going to be lots of discussion about this one. I've met those who hate all three Pirates movies, love all three, and all the possibilities inbetween. We'll probably see comments from all of them here.

I did not like this movie very much. I liked the first and thought the second was pretty good, but this one ...

I noticed tons of plotholes and various things about the characters and story that I just couldn't get over. It really bothered me throughout my entire watching. I agree with most of the things you said, but of course, I can see many reasons why others would rather like this movie.

I'm interested to see your take on the second half, because that's where most of the problems I had come in. Looking forward to it. =)

umm.....I don't think any of these movies were targetted at children. Teens and preteens, sure. Children? I don't think so.

Well see the hangings were to emphasize that the poor, heroic, freedom-loving pirates are so oppressed by a government that doesn't allow them to steal, kill, rape and pillage as they please and- ... yeah they really didn't think this script through.

It's PG-13, the opening is fine. I'd rather have dark than child patronizingly bad.

The movie did fail on an understandable plot, no one can figure out what side anyone's on, and how they get back from the land of the dead is lame, and yeah I skip over that final calypso thing whenever I rewatch it, but the script is interesting and funny and yeah that final is pretty epic. After you know what's going on PotC AWE is actually really enjoyable when you rewatch it.

Dead Man's Chest was 90% dumb and pointless, it just wasn't very interesting.

If you actually hated the first, why the hell would you watch the next two?

Probably because they had a friend or family member that loved it, like I had. I didn't hate or love the movies, but it was clear it didn't matter what I thought- my pirate-loving friend would badger me until I went with her anyway.

A person is 'hanged' not 'hung' like meat

Either is grammatically correct, but the word "hanged" saves everyone from unfortunate dick jokes.

I'm sorry FB but this movie was PG-13 so I disagree with a lot of your comments about the violence.

I'll admit it did disappoint as a closing for the trilogy, but I didn't think it was that bad, I thought it was an average movie when I saw it.

Just because that level of violence is allowable under that rating, that doesn't excuse the massive tonal shift between the first two films and the third. Especially the second one as they were filmed back to back. His problem isn't the level of violence for a PG-13 movie, it's the tonal shift in said violence within the same franchise and the bizarre effect it has on the characters in the 3rd flick - acting completely contrary to how they acted in the other films. Not to mention how awkward the transition to 'wacky antics for kiddies' is now, they can't have it both ways as it makes the movie feel disjointed and clunky.

Yeah, I remember being really excited about this movie too. But it just turned into some old mechanical cliche film. Davy Jones, who was really intimidating in the last film, was just dumbed down here and it just felt really rushed.

The only good thing about this film? Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush. Can't get more badass than those two.

After all these years, this movie STILL pisses me off. The worst part about it? They had a Pirate King, but it wasn't Jack. That's just so wrong.

I had a friend who loved the movie and said "It's so epicly perfect. I guess it's the writer in me." She insulted writers. Hence, I love this review, for I love seeing this movie get torn apart.

In honesty, you've got a lot of good points. The problem is, just because it's a Disney movie doesn't make it for kids, especially when the movie's rated PG-13.

You've missed his point....the first two movies were PG-13 also, the tone of the violence presented in the 3rd flick is massively different than that portrayed in the other two movies. Why was the 3rd so mean spirited when the other two weren't?

What do you mean? There was plenty of violence and heartlessness in the first movie. The time where they talked about raping Elizabeth, or when they shot the butler in the face, or when the pirates slit throats and murdered countless people in the final battle? Is the violence in this somehow more gruesome just because it doesn't quick cut away? A child can make the connection that if you point a gun at someone face and pull the trigger, they get shot in the face and die. No cut away will change that.

P.S. Great job Film Brain, this is probably the most controversial review you're done since Equilibrium. While I may disagree, you still did a great review.

I made a longish comment above about content vs tone, but I'll summarize here to save rehashing too much.

The content of a piece does not exactly equate to the tone of it. While something may be chock full of dark content, it can still be fairly light in tone. For example, you can put Army of Darkness and Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the same bin for violent content, but the tone of the two is worlds apart.

PotC of course doesn't ever reach those levels of gore, but the concept is the same.

You know what really bothered me about the pieces of eight? They seemed to have magical powers, in that they resonate when others are near, or when someone is using the call. And yet, when everyone gets to the gathering, oh, hey you didn't need a piece of eight, as long as you could replace it with ANY OBJECT AT ALL.

Also, the comic relief started to infuriate me after awhile. Yes, we get it, monkeys are funny, now get that crap out of here and go back to the fight.

I tought that the Pieces of eight could have been anything when they choose then, not that they could been replace it.

Bout to watch the video, but let me say my thoughts on the series...

First movie - fantastic, could have done without the supernatural, but it pulled it off OK.

Second movie - when you get past the supernatural plot that doesn't quiiiiiiite feel right, it's a pretty good movie. Not as good as the first, but a fun ride.

Third movie - still fun to watch, but it's less fun than the prior two and drones on a bit as though they didn't have quite enough material to make a third movie but wanted to cash in.

Film Brain, even though I really did enjoy this movie, and disagree with you on a lot of the points you made, I understand that your opinion is your opinion, and you're entitled to have it, and at the very least you are being mature about expressing it (unlike some people). And even though I'm going to end up not really liking this review as a whole, I still find you a smart and entertaining reviewer, and my respect for you has not wavered. =)

P.S. Sorry if this sounds like ass-kissing. ^_^

It does, it totally does. . . This comment makes me feel like I'm watching one of those ´´Perfect in every aspect`` reviews of Nostalgia Chick

Look, I'm not saying that Film Brain is perfect. All I'm saying is, despite disagreeing with him on many of his arguments here, I still respect him as a reviewer. Heck, I love Spoony, but I REALLY disagree with him regarding FFVIII, FFIX, and FFX, among other things. Heck, just about all of the reviewers on this site have, at least once, stated their dislike for and/or lampooned something I like, but I still really like them and the stuff they put out. I admit it, I did kinda gush there, but I wanted it understood that I wasn't one of those immature fanbrats who can't stand it whenever someone says negative things about something that they like, like some of the other people who posted comments here. So, if it came off like I was sucking off FB to you, I'm sorry that you feel that way.

A) Ah, yes, but Bambi's mum died off-screen. It was handled tastefully. Not to mention the fade to happy music afterward (which the Nostalgia Critic noted). In comparison, [b]Pirates 3[/b] would have not only showed her getting shot, but slowly dying from it.

B) A fair-ish point, although (and this may a bit skewed here) in the UK, [b]Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves[/b] is heavily cut to get a PG certificate (back before we had 12A rating: it would have got 15+ at the time). The cut version reduces the hanging and torture in the film, amongst other things. You can see a cuts list here: [url]http://movie- censorship.com/ report.php?ID=1206390[/ url]

This might be the longest I have ever left on any of your videos, Film Brain, so I hope you appreciate it =D .

First of all, I am a HUGE fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. I really love the first two movies and even enjoyed this one to a certain extend (as in a bunch of my friends went to see it, talked about it, made fun of it, and had some drinks afterwards). HOWEVER, I agree with you completely in that this is the weakest of the three movies.

My biggest gripe is that the storyline is convoluted as all hell. Yeah, all three films are complicated, but at least you could follow them (First movie: Ancient Aztec curse along with a vendetta, Second movie: Trying to pay off a debt along with some political stuff). The third... it was so confusing I stopped caring, and to me that's a problem. The length was also insane. I went to see this movie at around 9:00 PM. When it was over it was 1:00 AM! And I didn't even expect it to be this long. When I went to see the Lord of the Rings movies I was mentally prepared to endure a marathon. For this I wasn't so I became impatient. The boring plot didn't help either.

I was very excited to see this movie because I really wanted to see how the plot concluded since the second movie does have a lot of cliffhangers, so it was annoying that all of it either gets dismissed or explained very quickly with very little logic put into it.

There are still some fun scenes, but compared to the first two movies At World's End is a colossal BOOOOOORE...

Regarding this movie being aimed at kids but being overly violent you are kind of right, emphasis on kind of. You are right in that the movie WAS heavily marketed. A Jack Sparrow character was seen at the Disney theme parks, there was a ton of merchandise released including videogames and Happy Meal toys (again aimed at children) and even halloween costumes for babies and toddlers. So yeah, it may be a mistake to make such a graphic movie when you are trying to sell it to everybody.

But, this is the norm nowadays since far worse movies have been marketed towards families (such as Transformers and the like). Besides, there have been movies from our youth that are very effective nightmare fuels and deal with death in graphic ways. Yeah, we may have been scared by them, but in the end we kind of enjoyed it. It's like the Nostalgia Critic says, kids have been morbid obsession with being scared, and the Pirates films are amazing pieces of nightmare fuel (the first movie with the skeleton pirates, the second one with mutated fish pirates).

BTW, did you know that at one point Disney was planning on updating the Pirates theme ride by creating a dark version in which all of the characters turn into skeletons at night and was going to be adults only? o_O

Oh and about that scene with the multiple Jacks... FAN SERVICE. Seriously, some girls screamed in the theater when thi...

It became too convoluted with politics, deals, motivations, alignments and rules. It stopped focusing on the fun action and humor and sacrificed all its character and charm for darker tones and pointless special effects (I almost laughed at Calypso, but it was so bad that it was almost depressing). Everyone betrays each other, everyone is unsympathetic, and the things that made the characters likable in the first and even parts of the second movie were either zealously overblown, ruined by boring dialogue/scenes and poor writing, or stripped entirely. The acting is great, but the script, the pacing, the squandering of potential and the plot holes that you could steer a boat through, all amount to a devastating disappointment of a film--and that's if you even still cared after Dead Man's Chest.

Good review so far, though I don't necessarily agree that World's End was targeted at children, considering the complicated plot and everything. It was definitely aimed towards [i]families[/i], but I think the bigger problem with the darker stuff was that it really felt out of place and was both gratuitous and unnecessary, adding nothing to the story except a few "shocking" moments to make the villains seem more villainous. I mean, Up had an implied miscarriage in it, but it was still family friendly because of the way it was handled. They didn't show Ellie suddenly start bleeding out the crotch because they didn't have to, just like they didn't have to show people being hung, or rotting bodies piled up, or bloody head-shots, or attempted rape, or...well, you get my point.

I think Pirates took it too far, but the dark tone was detrimental to the movie as a whole, to all viewers, and not just because it could have scared little kids. If you remember, there were MOON ZOMBIES in the first movie that would have been just as frightening to youngsters as dangling feet. The main issue is that it just wasn't the same type of movie that the first one was, which earned its fans without being needlessly "edgy" for the sake of being edgy.

I HATE the second movie, I think it feels completely different and much worse than the first. The third is better, but I still say that the only good Pirates movie is Curse of the Black Pearl

This film was action packed and funny. But why did that woman get shot in the head.......dark turn but okay.[size=medium][/size]

That's exactly FB's point that many have missed, the violence level for a PG-13 isn't the problem in itself, it's the tonal shift compared to the previous movies in the franchise. I actually think it's pretty close to the line of what can be shown at a young age range - kind of like Jurassic Park on it's UK release. We didn't have a 12 rating yet so that film had to have extra warnings about it's content for a PG audience on the poster.

Oh, God. My friends dragged me to see this movie when it came out even though I had no interest in the franchise. I spent the whole time making fun of it. And, even though they loved the first movie, they joined in with me mocking it.

According to my friends, even they, people who love this film, HATED the ending. I personally feel that this film's existence is justified only by the fact that a Rifftrax can be made of it.

Wow, it looks like this review is going to be the next Equilibrium.

Ok, i have to say this first and foremost i don't know if the rating in the UK changed from the US release but here it was rated PG-13, as in no one under 13 admitted, children are [b]not[/b] the target audience, hormonal early teens which the first two movies especially appealed to, yes, little children, no. If a parent chooses to bring their little child to a PG-13 movie thats on them and is in no way Disney's fault.

other than that i agree with pretty much everything else you said, they ruined Will as a character and it really was hard to be on anyone's side because they were too busy stabbing their 'friends' in the back. yes it is a pirate movie but they kind of laid that aspect on a little thick.

Also i love Johnny Depp as much as the next girl, buuut there was just a little bit too much Sparrow overload, they also didn't stop mashing the crazy multiple personality jack in our faces, this movie was a lot harder to get into than the former two :P

[quote=waxy_my_dear]Ok, i have to say this first and foremost i don't know if the rating in the UK changed from the US release but here it was rated PG-13, as in no one under 13 admitted, children are [b]not[/b] the target audience[/quote]

I'm not sure I completely agree with FB's "for kids" complaints, but 2 things here. First, PG-13 does NOT restrict admittance to ANYONE. That's why R is called R, the R stand for Restricted. The PG in PG-13 (and PG) stands for Parental Guidance, as in it's supposed to be up to the parents to decide, but not admittance is not actually restricted. PG-13 was merely added a few decades back because it was felt that the gap between PG and R in what to expect was pretty large (see Bond movies before Goldeneye). And in a more recently created example, VG stores do not restrict the sale of T games to kids either like they do for M games.

Second, since when have we been so trusting that something rated for an older age group isn't targeted to a younger one? One way or the other, I assure you, plenty of kids saw these movies. The annoying 4 year old's dad whose ass I nearly kicked after the second movie for his kid constantly kicking my seat can attest to that.

[quote=kevwaffe[/quote]
but 2 things here. First, PG-13 does NOT restrict admittance to ANYONE. That's why R is called R, the R stand for Restricted. The PG in PG-13 (and PG) stands for Parental Guidance, as in it's supposed to be up to the parents to decide, but not admittance is not actually restricted.[/quote]

uh, yea, thats why i said pretty clearly in my first comment that it was up to the [u]parents[/u] to take their kids to the movie, i never said younger kids couldn't get into the movie at all, but its not like they can come into the film by themselves (i don't know about you but i wasn't allowed into a PG-13 movie by myself until i was actually 13)

Sorry, but its not for children, parents may be stupid enough to take them, but that doesn't mean its for them. it could appeal to young kids, but that doesn't make it the film's target audience, hell, porn pretty much appeals to underaged young boys, but that doesn't mean its intended for their consumption. i know i'm repeating myself, but it seems that you didn't get my point the first time :)

The first two Pirates movies were PG-13 too though and weren't nearly as nasty as the 3rd film...the films were marketed towards kids from the start what with all the toys, kids meal tie-ins, bedding, lunch boxes etc. aimed at a younger audience than 13. You can't say it wasn't marketed at younger kids because it was. The Disney logo too does this, Disney's older fare is usually packaged under the Buena Vista brand...certainly the older skewed live action flicks. Yet these were put out under the Disney brand, and like it or not, certain connotations come along with that branding......"it's for kids".

That's really only your opinion. There were multiple examples given in these comments already, where the first two films were just as violent.
I think you just don't remember them, as you watched the films a while ago, but the violence of the third is fresh back in your memory, due to film brains review.

Could you show an example where it was marketed at childreen younger than 13? I haven't seen any indication of that.

I haven't seen the Buena Vista Logo in a long time. Disney seems to market their films since about 2005 exclusively under the Discney Logo, regardless for which age they are intended for.

Only the first Pirates movie is even worth mentioning.

Um... It's rated PG-13. Does that sound like a rating for kids? Just because it's Disney doesn't make automatically make it a kids film. It's as stupid as calling an anime movie like Akira (one of my favorites) a kids movie because it's an animation. I mean, sure, animations are mostly childrens films, but can't adults get animations for their demographic? If so, then why can't disney make PG-13 movies? That's right, they do. Did you know that Surrogates (2009) is a Disney film? But it's marketed under another studio: Touchstone. I believe the reason that Pirates wasn't produced under Touchstone is because it shares it's ties with the DISNEY ride of the same name, so Disney HAD to put their name on it. Sorry for the tangent.

Did you know that a movie is rated well after it is completed? It is clear that it was trying to be a film that parents would enjoy but mainly targeted at kids. They squeezed around MPAA loopholes to get the rating to be PG-13 by actually not SHOWING most of the death scenes (like showing the feet instead of the heads of the people being hung). That was not done artistically but to ensure a lower rating than if they didn't. How many times have you heard of many needing to be edited the fuck out of because of the mpaa regulations? Temple of Doom was going to be rated R until they convinced them to create a new rating in between PG and R. Temple of Doom, even though it has some violent imagery has it for a purpose that relates directly to the plot! All of its violence has a reason. Where in here it feels like its done because the writers were way to lazy to create something a bit more imaginative. Either way the movie is obviously aimed at kids but as something most families could enjoy all together. Think about all the pirates toys you always see.

OK, several issues with this review. The first and most prevalent, and also one that's been mentioned already, is this movie was rated PG-13; in fact, they've ALL been rated PG-13. Thus, your constant whining about "For the Children" is moot.

Now, the opening scene. You say it's never mentioned again, but you're wrong. The entire movie's premise is based off the opening scene. The song being sung, Beckett robbing pirates of all rights and killing them all off indiscriminately, trying to claim the pieces-of-eight.

As for all your problems about bringing Jack back and why he's gone where he's gone, well, is it possible you have no imagination and demand Hollywood to feed you everything with a silver spoon? The Kraken pulled both Jack and his ship into an alternate dimension that no person can normally find. Though I can't give a logical explanation as to why the ship was intact, we have no proof that when the Kraken engulfed Jack that he chewed him up, swallowed him and covered him in digestive juices before he got to the Locker. Also, as for the "reason to find Jack," he was taken [i]body[/i] and soul, thus his Piece-of-eight was on his person when he died. If you hadn't skimmed over it, you could have mentioned how the second they got back to the real world, pretty much everyone wanted to just kill Jack, get his Piece-of-eight, and move along.

And as for the Kraken itself, how the flipping hell did you expect them to beat the Kraken? You're talking about a creature three times the size of any ship, which no stashable amount of explosives could kill, that can squeeze the life out of a ship and its entire crew without even expending all of its limbs. To beat something like that, we'd have to delve into levels of mysticism and magic that make the crap that went down in the third movie hardly a drop in the bucket.

And finally, all the backstabbing. Dude, these are PIRATES. They're SUPPOSED to be underhanded, looking out for only themselves and not caring how it affects others. The reason why Will is suddenly so cutthroat, simply enough, is because he's embraced the Pirate blood within him; after being around pirates for the last two movies, he's finally coming around to who he really is.

I'm not going to try to defend that this was an absolutely fantastic movie, but dude, you gotta stop thinking the movie-viewing public is a bunch of morons who only want to see two hours of explosions and can't put together a plot from a bunch of scattered pieces.

Took the words right out of my mouth! =D

[quote=ChaosZereul]I'm not going to try to defend that this was an absolutely fantastic movie, but dude, you gotta stop thinking the movie-viewing public is a bunch of morons who only want to see two hours of explosions and can't put together a plot from a bunch of scattered pieces.[/quote]


Well…to be honest, I'm pretty sure that's what hollywood thinks of the viewing public. The most recent crop of movies have been mostly what you described, because that's what most people seem to want to see.

If it isn't silly romantic comedies or just plain comedies at all, it's usually big budget explosion movies with more focus on action then plot. They're the films that bring in money, so hollywood continues to make them. At our expense.

There are a few gems, but overall it's not much to write home about.

You missed the point about the violence dude, it was a very different tone in the 3rd flick than it was in the other two...it was a bit much and really made the transition into the wacky slapstick all the more jarring.
It may be permissible under PG-13 (though I think it's borderline with the 'twisting the sword' scene), but younger children than that were marketed to by Disney and their various sponsors and partners and the tone is radically different than that presented in the first and second flicks.

I suppose I'm just a little jaded to violence. Nothing in the third movie really struck me as all that bad. The hangings in the first scene? Hey, at least all we saw were feet and not the entire act close up. Davy Jones obliterating the helpless Pirate ships? Gratuitous explosions, IMO. The twisting of the blade? Dark, yes, but not that surprising. I can't exactly say where, or how many times, I've seen someone twist the blade after inserting it, but it seems to be common knowledge to me now; If, for whatever available reason, you don't like the person whom you've just gutted, and/or you'd like to be a sadistic creep, twist the blade to prolong the suffering.

Yeah, in retrospect the tonal shift is apparent from the first two to the third, but I actually saw it as a welcome change. Historically, Pirates were always nefarious, deceitful, cold-hearted people. Hollywood may love glorifying villainy, but that's usually only because the target audience is old enough that they won't want to immediately emulate what they saw, and/or we only have one movie in which to get to know the villain-protagonist, so it doesn't leave that big of an impression. As much as everyone is trying to defend that this movie, and all prior PotC movies, are rated PG-13, there were plenty of children who saw the first two movies. I'm sure it spawned more than a few children wanting to be Pirates when they grew up. Maybe the tone shift was put into place to slap a small sense of realism into things and make sure the more impressionable kids didn't think that being a Pirate was a good thing.