[personal profile] learnedax
Pirates II was enjoyable, though certainly not as good as the first. It needed to be a lot tighter, I think.

Date: 2006-07-09 02:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eclecticmagpie.livejournal.com
I read a review in the Globe that panned it. Then I read a review in the Herald that said it was great. Based on internal cues, I believed that the Globe reviewer was a skilled reviewer who understood his subject and that the Herald reviewer thought that as long as there was a loud soundtrack and a bright screen, what else did you expect from a good pirate movie?

When I saw the movie, I decided that they were both right. That is, the Globe reviewer was on the mark in every complaint, and the movie was fun anyway, as the Herald reviewer said.

I do think that a smaller special effects budget and a better script would have improved it tremendously.

Date: 2006-07-09 05:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] umbran.livejournal.com
Tightness is good for self-contained stories. But clearly a lot of the things that aren't "tight" are threads meant to continue on into the third movie.

Date: 2006-07-10 01:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] learnedax.livejournal.com
I believe our definitions of tightness differ here. I'm thinking of primarily pacing, and a general sense of rhythm to the action. In some ways narratives are very close to musical pieces, and while some stories should be told with a Rhapsody in Blue feel, others call for more of a Marche Slave. It's always possible to go William Tellish and have your first movie float all pastoral with things crashing into action in the second half... but there was quite a bit of action here, just in my opinion rather too roughly laid out. The Lord of the Rings style CGI-fights may be partly to blame.

Date: 2006-07-10 06:30 pm (UTC)
ext_104661: (Default)
From: [identity profile] alexx-kay.livejournal.com
Speaking of pacing and Lord of the Rings...

On the 4th, I made the claim in your presence that "Extended Editions are pretty much always worse". You asked, what about LotR? But the conversation shifted before I could answer.

This weekend, I decided to finally get around to watching the EE of Return of the King (which I hadn't yet). Well, at least the first disc. And, like most EEs, I felt that it was... longer. But not notably better. In this particular case, a lot of the added material was just more of the stuff that annoys me about Jackson's choices (Gimli is just comic relief, Denethor has no gravitas at all, etc). And the pacing was slowed to an extent that I felt fidgety by the end of the 2 hours, and had no immediate desire to watch the second disc. (I probably will eventually, but it may be a few weeks.)

Date: 2006-07-10 07:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] learnedax.livejournal.com
Yes... Particularly on RotK I would agree, there's not a lot added for the length. I don't remember the differences well enough for TT to say. Fellowship, though, I thought was substantially improved by expansion, particularly in places like the Council of Elrond where things got cut fairly murkily for the theatrical release.

Of course, in all the films I thought the use of time was nonideal. The amount of good material that could have been left in if they hadn't added the inane staircase and dwarf-tossing scene to Fellowship...

Profile

learnedax

November 2011

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20 212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2025 09:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios