Once again Mark completely misses the point. It is amusing to watch him squirm, believing that ranting gives his arguement more wait, with his history of disliking a phenominally successful, amusing and entertaining series. 'Me thinks he doth complain too much', is the phrase which best sums up his entrenched misguided view. He has dug himself into a hole and should stop digging while he can still get out. He simply undermines his credibility as a serious critic with his dogmatised unbending view which shows he lacks judgement and humility. I still hold is views generally in good stead but he needs remove the blinkers and see the world as it is.

PotC 3 was terrible and the description of PotC4 sound like the problem Quantum of Solace had, a series of set-pieces with no coherent story to tie them together.

I agree completely with Dr K's summing up of PotC4 -OST. It was a mish-mashed collection of pieces losely tied together. Potc3 was the most boring, let down of a movie. I refuse to add it to my DVD collection.



I had a few giggles, but they quickly petered out. And for the first time ever, I came out of a 3D screening without a headache. The only plus to the movie I've found. Of course, it's left it wide open for a 5th movie. Heaven preserve, and keep us from PotC movies!

The Good Dr.'s reviews of the PotC franchise are far more entertaining than the films themselves.



On the subject of 3-D & 2-D, a worrying trend is emerging:

The future of cinema is literally starting to look dim even in the case of 2-D films, thanks to a growing number of theatres that are reluctant to switch back from 3-D to 2-D lenses when a 2-D film is shown. The result is a much darker picture for 2-D films as well, with up to 85% less light. Besides theatres cutting down on skilled projectionists, the reluctance has to do with DRM copyright protection technology in the new digital projectors. Projectionists have to provide a password to change the lens, and the wrong password can result in a total shut-down of the projector.



This alarming trend needs to be stamped out ruthlessly. So if you're in a cinema watching a 2-D screening of a film and the picture looks just too dark, check the light coming from the projector. If you see two beams of light instead of one, it means they've kept the 3-D lens on. For the sake of a bright future for 2-D film, please don't hesitate to ask your money back.

I totally agree with Mark's assessment of the high-seas franchise, with one exception.

I, too, think the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has metamorphosed into an embarrassingly obese and stupid cash-cow; though it possesses four stomachs, only one of these stomachs has managed to digest and produce something I actually like. For I pronounce my love for the very first of the films.

In hindsight, I can freely admit this affection has dissipated a bit over time, but when 'Pirates of the Caribbean the curse of the black pearl' hit the cinema, I was twelve years old! Suffused with excitement, which fused with newfound hormones, I watched it with immense exhilaration without the knowledge or the care that the movie was based around a theme park ride/attraction.

I'm disappointed at the now shipwrecked formula, however; when I swashbuckling[ly] arose from that red velvety chair and walked out of that particular screening in 2003 — just for one day ... I became a Pirate.

I also really enjoyed the first one.



I thought there was a coherent if a bit over complicated plot, some good bits of action, enough comedy and quite authentic looking sets, costumes and stuff.



And before the character became a daft caricature Capt. Jack Sparrow was really entertaining. Some of the other supporting actors did a good job as well. Not Gareth from The Office though. No not him.



I totally agree with the view on the 2nd and 3rd films being merely a few action sequences badly tied together, and they just didn't make any sense.

Really looking forward to Depp/Burton's 'Dark Shadows', particularly since the announcement that it'll be set in 1972 -that makes a lot more sense. As for Depp jumping about like an organ grinder's monkey for the fourth(!) time... I couldn't care less.



As long as Depp keeps his hand in on more interesting work, I can forgive him. Besides, it's not as if any of us would turn down the kind of creative freedoms that doing these 'paycheque products' must surely provide, would we?



Lets just hope that 'Dark Shadows' is a return to form for the Depp/Burton love-in, rather than another 'Alice in (Blun)Wonderland.'

C'mon now Mark. Don't beat about the bush. Say what you really think.

So you didn't like it then... my movie pub crawl is not in 3D, it's about beer drinking not pirates

I already got bored of the POTC franchise after the first movie and did not watch any of the the later films because I had enough of it after watching the trailers. But I think it would be great fun to listen to a full length commentary of Dr. K when the POTC 4 blu-ray disc comes out ;-)

I honestly didn't think it was that bad, I really didn't. I was surprised actually.



I liked the family stuff. I liked the religious stuff - okay, it's not exactly enough material for Christopher Hitchens to debate, but merely touching upon themes like Protestants v Catholics and faith v love in a Disney adventure is not to be sniffed at. Also, "PENELOPAY CRUTH!!" is a *massive* trade up from Keira Knightley, as an action heroine. And it was much shorter - still a bit too long, but not TOO too long. Plus every good adventure film needs a solid horror element to make you sit up, and I absolutely loved the mermaid element.



I really did like it about as much as the first one - that's right Doctor, Pearl IS a decent movie - and I'm genuinely puzzled by how harsh the reviews have been. It's nothing like as tangled up as Chest, or interminably dull as World's End, yet critics were much more forgiving of those. Despite being brought in against my will by a certain small child, I left sufficiently happy.



6/10.



(Oh and the 3D just ruined the 'watchability' of the night scenes, almost wrecking the highlight of the mermaid sequence. Adding dimness to an already dark scene is horrible. 3D is still a cinematically if not economically bankrupt technology.)

@bigmaldevon - "Weight". You should learn to spell before you seriously undermine your credibility as someone who vaguely knows what he's on about in any way.

It seems that knee-jerk anti 3D ludites can never be satisfied. If they see a film with flashy 3D jumpy out bits they'll complain that there were flashy 3D jumpy out bits, but show them a 3D film where the 3D is used to show you what you would be seeing if you were a true eye witness of the events depicted they'll complain that there weren't enough flashy 3D jumpy out bits!



When those arguments are exhausted they'll come up with other equally feeble attempts to justify their fear of the new like "it's too dark" (umm try giving your glasses a wipe), "it's all blurry" (you need an eye test), "the glasses are uncomfortable" (you can buy 3D glasses in lots of different shapes and styles online for less that £5 in most cases, or you can get the £1 ones from the cinema take the lenses out and put the lenses over your own glasses) and "it costs more to see a 3D film" (you get what you pay for, in this case an extra dimension).



There were probably similar people afraid of change when sound and colour was introduced to films. There will always be people who think that disliking new and popular things will somehow give them credibility, as if when people pass them in the street they will say to their friends in a hushed whisper, full of awe "there gos Tarquin, he doesn't like 3D films, I wish I was a cool rebel like him."



I wonder how many of these 3D naysayers would put their money where their mouth is and walk around with an eyepatch on all day so they could enjoy 2D outside of the cinema as well and do away with that pesky 3rd dimension altogether? None of them? Well there's a surprise! Turns out it's all talk after all.

Although you are getting rather uppity as it were, Mr Kermode, I was much the same way. My girlfriend suggested we leave the film early -- which we did. Both of us -- both with very different views on cinema -- were bored to bits. All in all, yet another thoughtless, quickly-made, money-making endeavour that brought the crowds in droves because of the following: Johnny Depp, the promise of rather pointless action sequences (explosions and such like), and some unintelligent and uncharismatic plot. Don't get me wrong, I liked Depp's early stuff (but he is just another actor), and I also enjoy action -- but only if there is a point to it. This was not film trash as such, but certainly poorly made. And a film takes a LOT of people to make -- so it was not as if they were able to hide from the fact that the script must have been awful. Not to mention what it must have been like during production. In any art from, the creator, writer, director, artist, should surely be asking the question of himself and of his work (or her work, of course) whether it is good, whether it is worth it, and whether it is still getting what you intended across. Now, WHAT you get across changes from person to person -- obviously some people enjoy Kubrick, some people enjoy Michael Bay; but even if action and blissful couch-and-pizza movies is your intention, sure they should be made to the best of ones abilities. (Please, excuse the ramble). Who knows. Disappointing certainly -- but should we even be surprised?