Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

[koobalicious]

is anyone planning on checking this out tonight? i heard there are midnight screenings to kick off the opening weekend. i actually just saw it in a sneak preview and it's every bit what you expect from Captain Jack Sparrow and more!! the action and fight sequences are ridiculous and the good old humor from the first movie is still there, but the best things are how awesome the villains look, Davy Jones and his crew. would love to hear what you think!!

 

[Quirk]

Why do most people say "I went to the Kuh-RIB-ee-uhn", but they say "I just saw 'Pirates of the Ka-ruh-BE-uhn'"?

Also, everyone pronounces the name properly as 'Alfred no-BELL', but they say "he won the NO-BELL Prize"?

Just throwing that out there...

 

[Violinist]

Originally Posted by Quirk

Why do most people say "I went to the Kuh-RIB-ee-uhn", but they say "I just saw 'Pirates of the Ka-ruh-BE-uhn'"?

Also, everyone pronounces the name properly as 'Alfred no-BELL', but they say "he won the NO-BELL Prize"?

Just throwing that out there...

good point.

 

[shoreman1782]

I believe Kuh-RIB-ee-uhn is more phonetically faithful to the "correct" (non-anglocized) pronunciation, so people making the trip these days (and I assume natives of the islands) say it that way.

The movie is based on the Disney ride, and that has always been known as Pirates of the Ka-ruh-BEE-uhn, closer to how most Americans probably pronounced it in the 50s. See also New Or-LEENS.

The new movie seems to be getting very mixed reviews. The first one was fun. Is MacKenzie Crook (Gareth from the brit Office) in this one?

 

[Quirk]

Originally Posted by Violinist

good point.

I just noticed that one day when I overheard someone mention the no'BELL Prize, and I thought, "what the... no, she's absolutely RIGHT!"

 

[Quirk]

Originally Posted by shoreman1782

I believe Kuh-RIB-ee-uhn is more phonetically faithful to the "correct" (non-anglocized) pronunciation, so people making the trip these days (and I assume natives of the islands) say it that way.

The movie is based on the Disney ride, and that has always been known as Pirates of the Ka-ruh-BEE-uhn, closer to how most Americans probably pronounced it in the 50s. See also New Or-LEENS.


I guess that makes sense. I thought it was New Awlins. Nuh-vah-dah. Organ. Missoura. Joisey.

 

[mnemonic]

Drink Up Me Hardies Yo-ho!

 

[acidboy]

is it true that keith richards was supposed to play captain jack's dad? if it is, then it's certainly too bad. could've brought the level of the movie up a few notches.

 

[benecios]

Originally Posted by acidicboy

is it true that keith richards was supposed to play captain jack's dad? if it is, then it's certainly too bad. could've brought the level of the movie up a few notches.

Yes it is true.It is happening in the next movie.

 

[Reggs]

I hear that there is a clip after the credits.

 

[koobalicious]

let's see...mackenzie crook is definitely in this movie - he gets more prominent exposure, which i thought was great. the whole keith richards thing was up in the air for a while but he's not in this one. i heard that he's going to be in the third Pirates of the Caribbean, however, which should be something to look forward to.

as for the clip, yes there is one post-credit and i'm talking after everyone and their mother's names scroll down.

anyway, i've never been on the disney ride on which the movie is based, but i can say that the action scenes are just about as close as you get to being on a roller coaster or amusement park ride. i know there are some mixed reviews out there but i think it's a good, fun summer movie and i just can't say enough about johnny depp...

 

[johnapril]

NYT ripped it a new one. I think the only value in these sorts of films are the wonderful pieces they inspire in the New Yorker and NYT.

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by johnapril

NYT ripped it a new one. I think the only value in these sorts of films are the wonderful pieces they inspire in the New Yorker and NYT.

I enjoyed the Times' somewhat jarring reference to Guns 'N' Roses. But the review, like one I read over at EW.com, strikes me as being of questionable value. The reviewer seems to object more to the busy nature of the modern summer blockbuster than the specifics of "Dead Man's Chest." Similarly, Lisa Schwarzbaum at EW hated the first one and, not surprisingly, hated the new one. Her review, in my mind, immediately becomes suspect, if for no other reason than our obviously differing tastes.

In the NY Times review, one of the primary complaints is the lack of a proper ending. But I can't imagine it's any worse than the first in the critically lauded "Lord of the Rings" series, which, if I recall correctly, ends abruptly with someone getting into a canoe.

I imagine PotC will deliver exactly what I (and most folks) expect. If it does, I'll be satisfied.

 

[Margaret]

Originally Posted by johnapril

NYT ripped it a new one. I think the only value in these sorts of films are the wonderful pieces they inspire in the New Yorker and NYT.

It's a summer blockbuster based on a frickin' amusement park ride -- can they find nothing more substantive to sink their malicious critical teeth into? What's next -- a hard-hitting piece exposing cotton candy as "nothing but sugary fluff"?

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by johnapril

I think the only value in these sorts of films are the wonderful pieces they inspire in the New Yorker and NYT.
Did you read the NYer review of Return of the King? (A movie I liked, incidentally.) It was one of the great put-downs of all time.