The Official Pirates of The Caribbean: World's End Thread!

[Hunter Rider]

:heart:

My thoughts verbatim.

is your review in here somewhere man ?

Ugh! Keira Knightly, needs to just...gain some weight.

Why ? she is naturally slender, but not everywhere, have you seen her undercarriage ?

 

[Cmill216]

is your review in here somewhere man ?

.....

Just came back from seeing the film. I'll give a full review tomorrow, but here are my initial reactions to AWE:

Boring, dull, bloated, annoying, repetitive, visually spectacular, disappointing, slow....and so on.....

Keira, Davy Jones, and the final battle saved this from being a complete train wreck. The visual effects completely trumped Spidey 3, but that film (despite its flaws) is still a far better experience. So so so disappointed in Pirates.

Initial Rating: 6/10

I never did write that full review.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

This is where AWE lost me as well...



Indeed. The multiple double crosses made the film very difficult to follow...



That final battle was okay but would've been epic had they gotten the rest of the pirates and royal fleet involved...as opposed to just watching from the sidelines.

But having said that, I ask you...

Does anyone else feel the series would've been more successful had they gone the Indiana Jones route and have 3 seperate adventures per movie as opposed to trying to link them into one 'coherent' trilogy?

I don't know cause quite frankly Temple of Doom is not a very good movie, I defiantly with all the little flaws the Pirates sequels have they both stand head and shoulders above temple of doom

now saying that l think Last Crusade was much better than both sequels, and the reason being is it at least brings some aspects introduced in the first masterpeice back to light. Most brilliantly being Indiana Jones' faith, which in the first film he doesn't believe in a god, but clearly by the end of Crusade he does (with no help from Temple of Doom). It also works as an excellent partner piece with the first one, so yes while it is a separate adventure it also works in the span of a series too.

I personally like the fact the whole series builds up to something, I love the die hard movies but what is the point of them after a while? what is accomplished in die hard 2? At least in DMC we are introduced to many things that play out in a future movie, its like watching a live action saturday morning cartoon the "to be continued" stuff those where always my favorite cartoons anyways. Is it this grand architect of a trilogy? A religious metaphor? Bring up any social or political issues? No

But it is adventure for adventures sake which there isn't much of these days, Transformers had great action and the best special effects to date, but in all that is lost a human element, and great characters. LOTR/Chorincles of Narnia/Golden Compass? Why can't I enjoy two polar bear's fighting with out it being a metaphor for Christianity or against it? I think all three of those flicks are very sub par entertainment both literary and cinematically (although I do think LOTR would make a decent graphic novel if someone where to adapt it). Spider-man is nice, but just like the comics the stories of Spider-man never amount to anything more than 200 million dollar power rangers episodes (which isn't a bad thing cause they are for the kids anyways), they are able to bring in relevant themes to the screen, but those themes are for 12 year olds.

My money for best film franchise out there right now though is Harry Potter, 5 stellar flicks in a row, great building tension, great individual stories (except for 5 really they moved into mainly focusing on the building to the climax of the series/which is what the books are kind of like anyways), and Deathly Hallows is going to be the coolest flick ever, even if they completely butcher it, as long as they put the 200+ into the battle for Hogwarts it will be incredible. But I defiantly think outside of Potter, at least for me this franchise holds up just as well, if not better than any of the other big action franchises

and of course, if TDK is even close to BB that will probably move into number 1

 

[Erzengel]

I obviously feel differently, I think my 3rd favorite Indiana Jones film (Temple of Doom) is better than the best Pirates movie (Curse of the Black Pearl).

I understand when you say you like a movie to build to something, but in AWE, it was very anticlimatic imo.

 

[Hunter Rider]

.....



I never did write that full review.

Damn! we really did feel virtually the same about it. t:

 

[Hunter Rider]

I obviously feel differently, I think my 3rd favorite Indiana Jones film (Temple of Doom) is better than the best Pirates movie (Curse of the Black Pearl).

I understand when you say you like a movie to build to something, but in AWE, it was very anticlimatic imo.

Agreed, i just watched all the Indy movies this week and none of the Pirates movies are as good IMO.

 

[Rez]

I posted this on one of the other Pirates related threads a while back, but it's probably more appropriate here:


Here's the majority of my problems with Pirates 3 after rewatching it on DVD... It's long, but I figured what the hell, why not:

Pirates 3 is a disaster. Not like an "Oops! I forgot to turn on the cooling at the ice cream stand I work overnight so it was all soup in the morning" disaster, but more like an "Oh ****! I was born a black Helen Keller in Africa and had my hands cut off like in the beginning of Blood Diamond" disaster. This is a film that takes all the good will and build up of the last film, hell, the last two films and completely flushes it down the toilet.

Where to begin? The completely floundered characters? The disregarded or utterly wasted plot points? The lack of cohesion from the previous two films? The rediculous script? The bipolar nature of the film? The constant time wasting, meandering, and the anticlimactic ending? I can go on all day.

We'll start with the characters. What happened? Seriously, what the **** happened?

Jack. You know, after the second film, I remember someone somewhere suggesting how much balls it would take for the third film to keep him dead- or make him nothing more than a cameo near the end. How the other characters, like Will, would have to step up and take center stage. And while it would be hard- perhaps impossible- how great that would be should they succeed. Of course we all knew that would never happen, we'd get him back after a big set piece to save him in the beginning, and things would be back on track and back to normal.
But after what we got, that's a concept I would have much rather seen. And in a way, that's exactly what we got. Because we did not get Captain Jack Sparrow back. Not at all. The Captain Jack of the first two films died at the end of DMC, and he never returned. This new Jack Sparrow, not even worthy of the title "Captain", was your basic stock Disney character- full of multiple versions of himself carrying out every little piece of his Id, then reverting into the even worse angel and devil shoulder gag routine. I expected such childish gimmicks out of the two soldier characters that returned from the first film, but not from the formerly witty, edgy Pirate we had all grown to love over the course of the two previous films. The worst thing about this complete departure from Sparrow's former character is that it was completely and totally unnecessary. Jack Sparrow is your textbook definition of a supporting character- that is, (in theory) he doesn't change throughout the course of the films. He's the same womanizing mostly selfish witty and clever pirate destined to be alone at the end of the third film as he is at the start of the first film. So why, then, for a character that doesn't change, do you completely throw out everything that made him an icon in the first films for something new? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only recognizable aspect of Jack in the third film is the way Depp plays him. Everything else is thrown out for a multiple personality wackjob that's used pretty damn unsuccessively for comic relief. Like we didn't have enough of that from other characters in the film, and even from Jack's original incarnation.

Norrington. The biggest waste of the film. And believe me, when there are so many, that's saying something. Here's a character that made a decent secondary foil to our main heroes in the first film, and completely jumped up to the next level in the second. His portrayal of an unflinching force of justice in the first film is one that Mr. Hollander could have learned from for his overly bland Lord Beckett. And his ruined, bitter man that's lost his honor and his love in the second film was magic. Do we continue that here? That level of greatness? Do we see a character that has backstabbed his way back to the top - done everything he once swore to fight against just to reclaim his former glory - wrestle with those inner demons? Do we see him struggle with a love we know he cannot have, struggle between learning that justice and being right aren't always the same thing as obeying the law? Nope. But we do see him mumble something about "Elizabeth" and then get impaled on a tree stump. Which brings me to the impaler, none other than....

Bootstrap Bill Turner! I wasn't aware the third Pirates was actually a crossover film with the Evil Dead universe. But after seeing Bootstrap Bill unexplicably turn into a zombie for the entire third film, it makes perfect sense to me now. Maybe I missed the part in the second film where members of Jones' crew slowly turn into mindless monsters. Oh, nope, wait, I didn't- it just wasn't there. In fact, it was actually established that despite how long a character is stuck aboard Jones' ship, they maintain all their brain functions. They might turn into a wall with a moving mouth and eyes, but they still have to sit through the horror of knowing that they are just a stupid wall with some eyes. But I guess the writers felt they had used up any other uses for the character, so he just became a screaming zombie instead. Even disregarding continuity(they did plenty of other places too), they could have introduced this factor early in the film, and had us watch as Will's father slowly deteriorated into a monster, upping the stakes for Will even more. Nope! He's a fumbling flesh eater screaming for brains with a big log from the get go folks! Brilliant.

Not to mention the complete lack of anything decent going on for Beckett, the unneeded and blink and you’ll miss it implied death of Elizabeth’s father sailing away on that stupid boat, the stupidity of having a genuinely interesting and mysterious woman just be “Mother nature and the sea” or some garbage, and a slew of quite wasted or unneeded smaller, bit part characters. Speaking of Elizabeth’s father, if they were going all that way to save Jack, why not just hoist her dad up out of the boat while they were at it?!

How about some more ball droppers on the plot! The biggest most notable one being the shafting of the KRAKEN! It’s a common, almost juvenile complaint, but damn if it isn’t a good one. One of the most memorable movie monsters in YEARS is completely dropped, given one scene and a few throwaway lines. Despite being a major part of the second film, having the potential to spice up that mess of a finale in this film, or even giving us the joy of seeing The Dutchman tear the beast apart, we are lacking any Kraken action whatsoever. Also, stop me if I’m wrong, but does it even make SENSE for Beckett to order Jones to dispatch his terrible beastie?! I thought the whole point of the power struggle for Jones’ heart in the second film was HE WHO CONTROLS JONES CONTROLS THE KRAKEN, AND THEREFORE CONTROLS THE SEA. Why not order Jones to just hunt down all the remaining Pirates with the Kraken? As we saw in the final film, Jones and his ship alone weren’t that big of a threat on their own. So besides despriving us of some good old fashioned creature action, it just didn’t make any ****ing sense.
But don’t stop there. What about that generally interesting love triangle and jealousy angle set up between Will, Jack, and Elizabeth. Unlike the supposed Luke-Leia-Han incest love triangle supposedly peppering the original Star Wars films, I actually felt there was a pretty tense love triangle going on here- so when they all but completely dropped it in the third film, my hands were up in the air(Not really, they were crossed in disgust and possibly groping the girl next to me). Elizabeth, like all good women worth wanting, spends the first two films running around back and forth between 3 different guys, so to have things so calm for the third film felt like a gigantic cop out. Especially given the amount that her love would be challenged at the end, the build up to that was non existant and so I didn’t feel anything. Of course, this lack of a love triangle may have had something to do with the fact that not one but two of her former love distractors- That’s right, the original Jack and Norrington- were all but absent from the film in the first place.

Now, cohesion. Call me crazy, but I was under the impression that these two sequels were written- and made- together. So why is it, then, that the SECOND FILM fits in with the first film almost flawlessly, while the third film is an utter mess than shares nothing but the actors and a few sets. Seriously, I got the impression that the uptmost care was taken to make DMC feel like an extension of the original Pirates. This film, though? This film feels like a six year old and an eleven year old were locked in a room with a rough outline of the last two films, a bunch of mountain dew, and told that the faster they finished the story the more presents they would get. Forget feeling connected with the first film, this puppy doesn’t even feel connected with the second. You know, the one that they made it with. Rather than picking up where the last one left us, it jumped ahead some random amount of time and changed a bunch of crap that (again) didn’t need changing. If it ain’t broke.. Oh, **** it, you get the idea.

And the tone?! Don’t even get me started on the tone. Whereas the other films balanced adventure and humor with a few meatier, more adult(okay, more teenage) concepts, this film feels like a pregnant woman on her period. That opening scene was grand, I’ll give you that. Nice and dark and perfect. And the ending? Also pretty damn dark. In fact, there’s a lot of darkness in here, but for every bit of darkness there’s two scenes full of childish, often unfunny humor. I say childish, because, well, that’s what it was: childish and unfunny. There’s a big difference between making humor appropriate for all ages and catering JUST to children, and that’s exactly what this film did. Sure, there’s a few moments of it here and there in the other movies(I’ve got a jar of dirt), but it’s in here as much as the 12th sequel to The Land Before Time, and as such feels completely out of place. I wouldn’t even have a problem with the film if it just catered to children. I wouldn’t really like it probably, but I don’t now, so who knows, maybe I would have. The problem is that the catering to children is intercut with mass violence and death and darkness, and they both counteract one another to the point where neither is effective.

Finally, the waste in general. One of the biggest complaints about Dead Man’s Chest is that the scene on Cannibal Island is pretty useless and far too long. Well, that sums up 98% of this film: Pretty useless and far too long. All that Asian crap? I’d equate that with the Cannibal Island stuff, except it’s longer, and they threw in a rape and a gruesome death to again cater to the children. But the biggest thing about this film, in fact, the majority of what this film is about, is the gathering of the pirates. And it’s all for nothing. Talk about anticlimactic on a grand scale. For the entirety of these sequels, there are forces being gathered. Two sides. Dead Man’s Chest united the East India Trading Company, Davey Jones, and who knows how many other people and nations that got strong armed into service like Elizabeth’s father. And then this film spends the entire time uniting all the Pirates. It has built and built and built all for... A big boxing match. A football game. An event where everyone except the chosen few battle it out in front of countless spectators. 3 ships. 3 ships in a whirlpool. I won’t even bring up the 1000 foot tall woman, because no one can defend that if their life depended on it. Quite possibly the most anticlimactic moment I’ve experienced in all of film. It would be one thing if they maybe established this basically 1 on 1 ship fight between the leaders to save lives or something. That’s completely plausable. It used to happen all the time in actual battles, it happens in movies, most recently I remember it happening in the beginning of Troy. See, that’s the thing, it happened in the beginning of Troy. Because even they knew that to do that at the end would be anticlimactic. Even if they established this, it would have still been anticlimactic, but at least it would have been SOMETHING. Maybe then we wouldn’t have all been sitting in the theater turning to eachother going, “What the hell, when are all the other ships going to jump in and help?!” So at the end of the day, this entire quest of the film to bring all the Pirates together, it’s just a waste. In fact, the end of the film, which leaves things pretty much exactly the same as how we started all the way back at the beginning of the original Pirates, it’s makes it ALL feel like one big flaccid waste. Sure, a few people are dead and a couple characters have swapped roles, but everything is pretty much exactly the same. That’s right, I just used the word flaccid to describe something other than a penis, and it was this movie.

I won’t be all negative though. There were a few moments of greatness. Like I said, the opening scene is fantastic. Poppa Sparrow is nice. And shooting the monkey out of the cannon almost makes up for the rest of the film sucking so horribly. But not quite.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I obviously feel differently, I think my 3rd favorite Indiana Jones film (Temple of Doom) is better than the best Pirates movie (Curse of the Black Pearl).

I understand when you say you like a movie to build to something, but in AWE, it was very anticlimatic imo.

wow that is rough, lemme ask you then, what does temple of doom offer that rush hour 3 doesn't? For me at least that movie doesn't come close to the two pirates sequels, I'd go like this though

1. Raiders
2. Curse of the Black Pearl
3. Last Crusade
4. At World's End
5. DMC
6. rat race
7. Temple of Doom

jk about rat race

 

[Flexo]

I... I might be in love with Rez.

 

[Erzengel]

wow that is rough, lemme ask you then, what does temple of doom offer that rush hour 3 doesn't? For me at least that movie doesn't come close to the two pirates sequels, I'd go like this though

1. Raiders
2. Curse of the Black Pearl
3. Last Crusade
4. At World's End
5. DMC
6. rat race
7. Temple of Doom

jk about rat race

While most people rank Temple of Doom lower than Raider or Crusade, it's still regarded a good movie by fans and critics a like.

Technically Temple takes place chronologically before Raiders and the ties between Raiders and Crusade aren't really that close nit since the only reference is when they see the Ark painted/etched on the walls and there's a quick reference to it. So this Trilogy isn't suppose to be a Star Wars, LOTR type story but mainly 3 different stories.

In terms of good trilogies, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, LOTR, Bourne, Man with No Name all pretty much in my opinion the only consistently good ones.

Godfather, X-Men, Spiderman, Terminator, Shrek, Blade have the solid even stellar first 2 movies down and fall flat in the 3rd.

Matrix and Pirates, I feel lost their way by the 2nd movie.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

While most people rank Temple of Doom lower than Raider or Crusade, it's still regarded a good movie by fans and critics a like.

Technically Temple takes place chronologically before Raiders and the ties between Raiders and Crusade aren't really that close nit since the only reference is when they see the Ark painted/etched on the walls and there's a quick reference to it. So this Trilogy isn't suppose to be a Star Wars, LOTR type story but mainly 3 different stories.

In terms of good trilogies, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, LOTR, Bourne, Man with No Name all pretty much in my opinion the only consistently good ones.

Godfather, X-Men, Spiderman, Terminator, Shrek, Blade have the solid even stellar first 2 movies down and fall flat in the 3rd.

Matrix and Pirates, I feel lost their way by the 2nd movie.

You know I didn't even know Temple took place before Raiders until now...

what I meant about how crusades works is like this, it is a separate adventure, but the theme of Crusade is a crossover from the first movie that being Indiana's faith. that is what makes crusade so brilliant, and in terms of that gives the indiana jones series a bit more credibility storytelling wise for a trilogy than a separate adventure system that Die Hard displays

But I don't see how temple is any different than DMC, if not (imo) worse than, I mean, stupid pointless scenes, a ridiculous premise/conflict, over the top special effects. I much prefer the serial storytelling of Pirates vs the separate story of temple

but seriously dude, our opinions of Pirates aside, X-men with its first two movies being good to excellent? Shrek? Blade (Blade 2 rules though)? dude com'on those movies are for the most part all crap imo with the first X-men being one of the absolute worst flicks I have ever seen.

 

[Rez]

Eh, I love Temple of Doom more than any of the others. Why, you ask? Sure, Steve's wife is annoying, the 3 stones in the middle of no where are lame mcguffins, and bla bla bla, but none of that matters, because Indy trapped on the bridge at the end, standing in the middle, saying "**** it" with his facial expression and cutting the damn thing in half is the greatest scene in the history of cinema.

 

[Rez]

I... I might be in love with Rez.

I always knew some day you'd come walking back through my door

 

[Erzengel]

You know I didn't even know Temple took place before Raiders until now...

what I meant about how crusades works is like this, it is a separate adventure, but the theme of Crusade is a crossover from the first movie that being Indiana's faith. that is what makes crusade so brilliant, and in terms of that gives the indiana jones series a bit more credibility storytelling wise for a trilogy than a separate adventure system that Die Hard displays

But I don't see how temple is any different than DMC, if not (imo) worse than, I mean, stupid pointless scenes, a ridiculous premise/conflict, over the top special effects. I much prefer the serial storytelling of Pirates vs the separate story of temple

but seriously dude, our opinions of Pirates aside, X-men with its first two movies being good to excellent? Shrek? Blade (Blade 2 rules though)? dude com'on those movies are for the most part all crap imo with the first X-men being one of the absolute worst flicks I have ever seen.

X-Men 2, Shrek 2 and Blade 2 have been critically and fan wise been seen as better than the originals. IGN, MSN, Rottentomatoes, etc as they list X-Men 2 and Blade 2 as the top sometimes 10 best comic book movies.

Critically Shrek 2 was rated as high as the original.

Temple of Doom because it's self contained, didn't have quick fixes to storylines (i.e. Norrington, and the Kraken, etc.) or storylines that went nowwhere (i.e. Love Triangle, and Jones and Calypso, Pirates brethren, etc.). I'd prefer Temple of Dooms anytime over Pirates. I don't even stop on Pirates when it's on cable.

 

[Hunter Rider]

You know I didn't even know Temple took place before Raiders until now...

what I meant about how crusades works is like this, it is a separate adventure, but the theme of Crusade is a crossover from the first movie that being Indiana's faith. that is what makes crusade so brilliant, and in terms of that gives the indiana jones series a bit more credibility storytelling wise for a trilogy than a separate adventure system that Die Hard displays

I already wrote what doesn't work in Last Crusade in the Indy thread so i wont rehash but lets just say i disagree, the motif of the film is that family is more important than obsession, it has nothing to do with Indy's faith. Raiders is about Indy as an archaeologist, he wants to study the arc b/c it is the ultimate discovery of his profession, again faith doesn't come into it.

But I don't see how temple is any different than DMC, if not (imo) worse than, I mean, stupid pointless scenes, a ridiculous premise/conflict, over the top special effects. I much prefer the serial storytelling of Pirates vs the separate story of temple

Stupid pointless scenes ? the movie is paced pretty much dead on with every part connecting and going somewhere, unlike a lot of the Pirates sequels scenes. How is the premise anymore ridiculous than sea beasts or a mythological arc ? The Thugi cult did exist, Khali was worshipped. Over the top special effects ?

 

[Erzengel]

Indiana Jones is pretty consistent throughout each movie, which I'm hoping stays true in the IV movie.

They really tried to mess with the dynamic of Sparrow's character in the sequels instead of keeping it with the 1st movie.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Indiana Jones is pretty consistent throughout each movie, which I'm hoping stays true in the IV movie.

They really tried to mess with the dynamic of Sparrow's character in the sequels instead of keeping it with the 1st movie.

Agreed, they veered from the funny, roguish anti hero into an almost parody of the character by the end, trying to make him into Han Solo and introducing a preposterous love triangle was the biggest misstep in the trilogy IMO.

 

[turtlefocker]

I thought this film was far better then dead man's chest which I thought was dreadful. The first one is still by far the best.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I already wrote what doesn't work in Last Crusade in the Indy thread so i wont rehash but lets just say i disagree, the motif of the film is that family is more important than obsession, it has nothing to do with Indy's faith. Raiders is about Indy as an archaeologist, he wants to study the arc b/c it is the ultimate discovery of his profession, again faith doesn't come into it.

I don't know how you can say you love the character, and completely missed one of the greatest character turns in the history of action/adventure film

Raiders and Crusade are both on the hunt for lost religious artifacts, in the first movie Indiana says something to the effect of, "I believe that those artifacts exist, but the real myth is what the people believed the artifacts did" essentially, even though he has done all this research, he still views God/Jesus as a mythological character. He even sees the finger of God at work by the end of Raiders, but in Crusade still doesn't necessarily believe in God, showed when he is reading the tablets he says something again to the effect that he doesn't believe, and you got the wrong jones etc, etc. The end of the movie when they are in that valley place is when Jones makes the turn to faith, when he has to he has no other choice to believe he takes the step out onto the invisible platform which symbolizes the chance you have to take on faith for faith to work, what Jones was missing all the years, he had all the evidence to support the belief but he never wanted to take that "leap of faith"

 

[Hunter Rider]

I don't know how you can say you love the character, and completely missed one of the greatest character turns in the history of action/adventure film

Raiders and Crusade are both on the hunt for lost religious artifacts, in the first movie Indiana says something to the effect of, "I believe that those artifacts exist, but the real myth is what the people believed the artifacts did" essentially, even though he has done all this research, he still views God/Jesus as a mythological character. He even sees the finger of God at work by the end of Raiders, but in Crusade still doesn't necessarily believe in God, showed when he is reading the tablets he says something again to the effect that he doesn't believe, and you got the wrong jones etc, etc. The end of the movie when they are in that valley place is when Jones makes the turn to faith, when he has to he has no other choice to believe he takes the step out onto the invisible platform which symbolizes the chance you have to take on faith for faith to work, what Jones was missing all the years, he had all the evidence to support the belief but he never wanted to take that "leap of faith"

I just watched them the other day, he doesn't say that and in Raiders he is always aware that the supernatural exists, he just doesn't fear it, but his goal is to reach a landmark moment in archeology and the point of the movie is that ppl wanting power for the wrong reasons is dangerous.

Last Crusade has nada to do with religion outside of the mcguffin, the Holy Grail, and everything to do with obsession and family, his obsession with the cross of Coronado and his fathers obsession with the Holy grail, Hitler's obsession with power and Donovan's obsession with immortality.
When Indy is slipping at the end to grab the cup for his fathers approval, he stops and realises with his fathers words "let it go Indiana" what is important. His "leap of faith" was a show of love for his father, not symbolism for anything else, For someone claiming to love the character you read into the movie what you wanted to see, instead of seeing what it was really about.

 

[The Chris]

I got this for christmas, and I must say, it is really growing really fats. I always liked it but now I'm starting to love it. I think the first and third work better on DVD (ALWAYS THOUGHT DMC WAS AWESOME BECAUSE OF HOW FUN IT IS). Watching it at home has allowed the complexities to really sink in and the backstabbing to get even better for me. Two things that I didn't like in the theater, well, I still don't like, but they're not as bad. Quieter moments like Jack and Barbossa's scene near the Kraken really get enhanced due to being at home, while scenes I always loved just get better again for some reason (parlay:western music, maelstrom, ship teamup at end). The davy jones longer scenes really improved for me because in the theatre I had an idea of what I thought the locker would be like, but got something else and didn't know how to feel, but now I find the scene very interesting and imaginative. All in all, this may end up being my favorite in the trilogy one day. Right now I have it tied with the second one.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Is there a trilogy pack coming out?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I got this for christmas, and I must say, it is really growing really fats. I always liked it but now I'm starting to love it. I think the first and third work better on DVD (ALWAYS THOUGHT DMC WAS AWESOME BECAUSE OF HOW FUN IT IS). Watching it at home has allowed the complexities to really sink in and the backstabbing to get even better for me. Two things that I didn't like in the theater, well, I still don't like, but they're not as bad. Quieter moments like Jack and Barbossa's scene near the Kraken really get enhanced due to being at home, while scenes I always loved just get better again for some reason (parlay:western music, maelstrom, ship teamup at end). The davy jones longer scenes really improved for me because in the theatre I had an idea of what I thought the locker would be like, but got something else and didn't know how to feel, but now I find the scene very interesting and imaginative. All in all, this may end up being my favorite in the trilogy one day. Right now I have it tied with the second one.

I too found that the movie grew on me the more i watched it, even though i liked it first time, for me DMC is definately the worst of the trilogy.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

I still don't have AWE on DVD... but im saving my money so I can get the Box Set.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I', burning it tonight and tomorrow. I altered my covers so they fit together a lot nicer then before.