May 24, 2007, 7:43 a.m. CST
May 24, 2007, 7:45 a.m. CST
i forgot my username...
May 24, 2007, 7:51 a.m. CST
Turns out this isn't a film made for critics -- but I was going to watch this tonight anyway.
May 24, 2007, 7:52 a.m. CST
by Franklin T Marmoset
Harry fucking Potter?
May 24, 2007, 8:03 a.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
Like I said, like it or not. Talk to the kids who grew up with it. They know their shit chapter and verse and speak of the series with a reverence our generation reserves for the Holy Trilogy. Most people try to draw trilogy to trilogy when making the comparison. But you mark my words. Ten, fifteen years from now, there will be Potter refrences peppered throughout pop culture. And an entire generation will mark points of their life in accordence with the big Potter events. And yes, Hermione sexual fantasies are the Gold Bikini Leia.
May 24, 2007, 8:03 a.m. CST
Just beating that other guy to the punch, there...
May 24, 2007, 8:08 a.m. CST
I'm so glad to read this review!!!
May 24, 2007, 8:14 a.m. CST
by jimmy rabbitte
did to Star Wars and Empire?<p> Does that mean there will be anything as annoying as the Ewoks were? <p> Seriously. The Ewoks destroyed Jedi, and made Luke's duel with Vader and Palpatine look like it was from a different movie. <p> I was pleasantly surprised by PotC 1 and a bit let down (Matrix Reloaded style) by PotC 2. Your words give me hope Massawyrm... I'm hoping it'll deliver the way you described... we'll all soon see.<p> Thanks for a story without spoilers Massawyrm.
May 24, 2007, 8:18 a.m. CST
Now I'll have to spend half the film explaining to my wife and 12 year old what the hell is going on. Seriously, I'm glad Disney didn't take the easy way out and make this a mindless, steaming pile of meh, which we all know they're more than capable of doing. It was nice to see part 2 wasn't a tidy little Disney money machine, but I didn't feel the need to see it twice. Guess I'll have to now to make sure I remember what the hell happened. So, Part 1 tonight, Part 2 tomorrow and Part 3 on Saturday. Oh, and um....some of that drinking thing, too...probably.
May 24, 2007, 8:18 a.m. CST
Fuck Harry Potter. Overrated bullshit.
May 24, 2007, 8:22 a.m. CST
I Had a friend who around the time of the third HP film being released, he insisted that Emma Watson was 16 (the Age of consent here in backwards blighty) and admitted to having sexual fantasie about her. I am no longer friends with this person and I hope the police got 'im!
May 24, 2007, 8:38 a.m. CST
or worse -- expelled.
May 24, 2007, 8:39 a.m. CST
The review, no.
May 24, 2007, 8:40 a.m. CST
...because it was ripped directly from a far superior movie.
May 24, 2007, 8:42 a.m. CST
Just read it again, its good! (Blame teh booze)
May 24, 2007, 8:49 a.m. CST
by Franklin T Marmoset
Going back a few years, I thought this generation's Star Was was going to be Pokemon. That was all the kids around here went on about. Cards this, toys that, limited edition game controller the other. It was confusing as hell to an old bastard like me. Pikachu? Fuck off.<p>Anyway, my problem with Harry Potter is purely prejudicial (haven't read them, haven't seen them), and that is the weird Invasion Of The Body Snatchers vibe I got when I woke up one day and was surrounded by adults reading childrens' books about a boy wizard. It freaked me out, you know, and even now I'm a little bit scared of the whole Potter phenomenon. One day, no Harry Potter; next day, Harry Potter all over the fucking place. Some kind of alien intelligence has to be behind it.<p>Anyway, I'm glad you liked the Pirates film. I hope I'll like it, too, but I'm still bracing myself for a bit of a mess.
May 24, 2007, 8:57 a.m. CST
Because there's already been a Star wars trilogy for this generation, full of flashy colors, dumbed down plots, and one dimensional characters. McGregor was the only one who seemed to give a damn. Also, the worst of the original SW trilogy was far superior to that trite trash Dead Man's Chest. You can't have a steaming pile like that as the connecting film in a 3-parter and still compare it to SW. The middle saga is pivotal; it develops characters, reveals layers and plots, sets everything up for part 3. While DMC may have done that, it did it by totally undermining some of the basic elements of part 1, namely, Will-Elizabeth's love story. What would we have thought if Leia in Empire had suddenly turned into a Lindsay Lohan clone (or template I guess)? Utterly out of character from the first film, plus all the blatant pandering to the lowest common denominator. Compare it to the second trilogy, not the first. I have spoken.
May 24, 2007, 9:16 a.m. CST
me weary. It sounds like they forgot to put plot in the second film so they decided to throw a bunch into the third film.
May 24, 2007, 9:18 a.m. CST
Because they're just flat out better movies. Being young myself, I've no doubt that LOTR will be considered this gen's Star Wars in terms of movies, if you ment the book series then I can't really argue against that.
May 24, 2007, 9:30 a.m. CST
The HP books will rule Generation Z (is that what they're calling them?) when they enter the mainstream of creativity. There's a reason Al Gore wasn't a successful author until he wrote 'Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth'<p>Of course, that's presuming they have a chance, with, you know, world ending in 2012.
May 24, 2007, 9:30 a.m. CST
You can't have "This generation's Star Wars" simply because Star Wars was a first kiss, theatrically speaking. The rest is just a variation on that kiss. LOTR doesn't have near the resonance that Star Wars had, not in pop culture, certainly not in merchandising. Star Wars gave us something we hadn't ever seen before. LOTR gave us something we'd already read, presented in a way that was slightly more shiny and polished than what we'd already seen before. You can't dub something "this gen's Star Wars", because that's like giving yourself a nickname. It's fucking lame any way you slice it. LOTR was huge, but it wasn't Star Wars.
May 24, 2007, 9:30 a.m. CST
May 24, 2007, 9:39 a.m. CST
Chrth, I agree that the Harry Potter BOOKS will probably be considered one of this generations defining moments, the sheer popularity of it has become almost unbelieveable (seriously, how many authors become billionares??) @Nightarrows, I was 11 when "The Phantom Menace" came out, so obviously I wasn't there for origional trilogy, so I guess it would be better to say that Lord of The Rings is the biggest Series I've personally experienced yet.
May 24, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST
by Franklin T Marmoset
NightArrows - I think the point we're all getting at is that kids tend to rally around some big pop culture event and it stays with them (nostalgia and whatnot) into their adulthood. Just like Star Wars did for many of us. I still have a hunch we'll be seeing some kind of Clerks type film in ten years or so where twenty-somethings wander around chatting about Pokemon, but Massawyrm reckons it's Harry Potter. Or it could be Lord Of The Rings. I'm still not sure about POTC, though. I've always thought of it as this generation's Back To The Future.
May 24, 2007, 9:49 a.m. CST
Star Wars changed the landscape, everything since has just changed the window in which we look at it. Firsts are still firsts and every big film that followed SW, simply walked in the tracks those three films laid down.
May 24, 2007, 9:59 a.m. CST
by Borgnine JR
...was when Lindsay Lohan played her on SNL. She put the BAIT back in Jailbait.
May 24, 2007, 10:08 a.m. CST
In 15 years your going to have a generation that grew up on LOTR, SW, Harry Potter, and Spider-Man. So unlike our generation which resulted in a bunch of middle-aged SW geeks with no lives, you're going to have a ton of middle-age geeks fighting over their fanboy elitism with each other. btw Vader is why Jedi, and the entire series, rules.
May 24, 2007, 10:09 a.m. CST
by Borgnine JR
...Porky's. Can't have a generation without a Porky's.
May 24, 2007, 10:15 a.m. CST
Yeah, kids go crazy for Harry Potter. They see it time after time again, and I'm sure some of the parents find it enjoyable when they take their kids to it. However, the Star Wars of today it is not. No series holds that title yet, and it may be a long while for that to even happen, if it EVEN EVER happens. Star Wars was lightning in a bottle, and EVERYONE was blown away by that series. People were so blown away by it, that when they were done seeing it, they got back in line and saw it again. I just don't choose to believe that because there are so many series out right now, that one of them must be reminiscent of the impact that Star Wars had. None come close. Granted, JK Rowling has made damn near as much coin as George Lucas. And the fact that they're making a fifth movie and the public investment is still there, that's amazing. Hell, the fans of this series will call it "classic" 20 years down the line, and nostalgia will make it so for them. But no Potter film is even as good as the weakest of the trilogy, "Return of the Jedi".
May 24, 2007, 10:18 a.m. CST
as this gen's trilogy. More people have read and watched the potter books and movies by FAR, but think about cultural impact. More movies, commercials, and art have been influenced by the matrix than potter. And it also has more parallels with star wars. It's science fiction, and was an original idea, not an adaptation. I agree with Pirates being like BTTF.
May 24, 2007, 10:18 a.m. CST
The HP movies are an afterthought. It's the books that will put their imprint on the generation.
May 24, 2007, 10:24 a.m. CST
POTC2 sucked monkey fuck. The first movie was good, but the plot of the second film was nonsensical. There was never a plan to have a trilogy until the first one was a surprise and Captain Jack Sparrow ended up being really marketable. What you can't deny about this series, or The Matrix trilogy for example, is that it could've been better. You say that the character arcs and storylines are so engrossing, but you cannot look anyone straight in the eye and say they couldn't have panned out any other way. "Empire Strikes Back" is an example of a continuation being so perfect you couldn't imagine it any other way. And to anyone who says, "Shut your brain off and you'll have a helluva time", are you downloading this movie in your basement when you say that? It's like going to a shitty carnival and saying "It's all for the experience" when you reach for your wallet. If I pay $10 for a movie, I have expectations. Most importantly it had better be good enough that I don't need to lobotomize myself to feel satisfied when credits roll.
May 24, 2007, 10:27 a.m. CST
The books HAVE had one of the biggest impacts on pop culture since Star Wars. The movies are pretty much a dessert for having read the books,and I encourage anyone to read the book before seeing the movie and compare the two.
May 24, 2007, 10:27 a.m. CST
But I think it was more a technical influence, not a cultural one. We won't be reading a Stephen King III book in thirty years that drops a Matrix reference, but we've already seen Harry Potter references in the Dark Tower Series!
May 24, 2007, 10:57 a.m. CST
they already happen. stephen king's used the snitch harry potter edition flying grenades in part 6 of the dark tower...
May 24, 2007, 10:58 a.m. CST
should read all of the talkback before posting...
May 24, 2007, 10:59 a.m. CST
How is the plot of DMC any more nonsensical that that of the original? Yes, a sequel was not guranteed (even the studio thought the first would tank after they saw it). Same thing happened with Star Wars (Lucas may have had some REALLY broad strokes in mind for continuing the series, but I think the continuity errors and rampant ret-conning have proved that he barely had that) and the Matrix and BTTF (Indy doesn't count as each story is basically standalone) and on and on... It is as logical an extension of the events in the first film as could be expected when the first was originally made as a standalone movie. And all this "check your brain at the door" malarkey is getting tired. I think (and several other AICN reviewers and members do as well) that this series is better the MORE you pay attention to it and the MORE you think about it and use your brain. I rarely have conversations that last hours in regards to summer "popcorn" movies, but I've had several about the POTC movies.
May 24, 2007, 11:33 a.m. CST
Uh.. how about 'he who must not be named' 'the boy who lived' etc... I mean are you kidding me? Hell back in Angel Season 5 there was something I considered a Harry Potter reference, when Spike said "Percy here was head boy!" in speaking about Wesley. Though maybe not, since he called him Percy a few times before that so maybe thats just a wussie name he is giving him not in reference to Potter, but when I heard that line its what I thought of.
May 24, 2007, 11:41 a.m. CST
on Buffy once, as well. I don't think dialogue quoting is neccessary to gauge a property's impact on the pop culture lexicon. As long as references to people, places and things specific to that world are recognized outside of the context OF said world then that property has definitely broken through BIG TIME.
May 24, 2007, 11:47 a.m. CST
to name the school that Harry Potter goes to. Then ask 1000 people to name the planet that Luke trains to be a Jedi on. I gurantee you more people with get the former right than the latter.
May 24, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST
Because at least every potter book was good... The prequals... I honestly think they hurt the legacy of the originals. Well not all the prequals, just the first one and most of the second (I enjoyed the end of 2nd and all of 3rd) Still, as someone born the year Star Wars came out, in my opinion Harry Potter overall is way better going by all movies... and if going by original movies still better. But thats my opinion.
May 24, 2007, 12:19 p.m. CST
By saying all the kids want to see it... Harry Potter isn't a kids series anymore. Its a series for everyone. Hell if anything the last few books are NOT for kids at all, hence the PG-13 rating for Goblet, and at least the book for Phoenix is much worst then Goblet, so I imagine movie will be too. Most of my adult friends are more into Harry Potter then the kids, maybe because they can see more into the story of it, appreciate it for more then just "oh cool, magic" And it is already a classic, and its other novelists calling it that as well...
May 24, 2007, 1 p.m. CST
Expecto Patronum...or something like that... Love me some Pirates, but I have to agree with the HP to Star Wars comparison...except that the movies are getting better rather than worse...nice pink sword Massy, very double entendre-ish.
May 24, 2007, 1:06 p.m. CST
Hold on to your horses, buddy. The "end-trilogy" of the Harry Potter heptalogy is only JUST starting off this summer and I can assure you, it's gonna be one hell of a mother-fucking ride. The wildest is yet to come.
May 24, 2007, 1:10 p.m. CST
by Cletus Van Damme
Dwell upon that.
May 24, 2007, 1:28 p.m. CST
I am always struck by the way the unfailingly tedious Massawym (Harry's seven-year-old nephew, one has to assume) belabors the obvious, to say nothing of his inability to get through a paragraph without mangling fundamental English grammar. <br><br>But never are these deficiencies more glaring than in a week in which both be and Alexandra DuPont review the same movie. <br><br>Go. Away. You. Halfwit.Fucktard.
May 24, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST
Because the review on CNN.com said it was downright bad, with Depp being the only saving grace.
May 24, 2007, 2:03 p.m. CST
by Automaton Overlord
Its amazing, people reading this site, which caters to the fan-boy crowd (myself included),haven't read the Harry Potter series. Well here is the low-down; they're really well written( I'm 28 by the way). If you have not read them and you think you understand what all the fuss is about, you are mistaken. Its kind of like if some one described the LOTR to you and you imagined it to be something like "the Sword of Shannara". The difference is quality of story telling.
May 24, 2007, 2:14 p.m. CST
Neil Rosen from NY1 gave it 1 out of 4 apples and said it was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to long and convoluted. He thinks the first one was great but wasnt a fan of second either, said second was just a bunch of crap going on. So I am thinking either people love it or hate it... cause a few people now have said its utter crap. Don't really see any reviews in between.
May 24, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST
I cannot help but notice that in an abundance of Massawyrm's reviews he talks about Harry like they're lovers. It appears he is a tad obsessed with the man and wants all of us to know how much they are alike in his articles. Stalk much? Other than that, I can't wait to see this! Dense you say? That works for me.
May 24, 2007, 2:32 p.m. CST
i agree:potter=star wars of this gen. (albeit a loose comparison) Not LoTR..certainly NOT Matrix....ask any kids..they dont give a shit about those films...maybe never even seen them all.they dig smokin the POTter! LOTR and MATRIX (and the SW preeqs) are ALL just new Star Warses ror OUR Generation. personally i think the potter films are pretty lame...terrible acting, contrived and derivitive plots. but then i also think that matrix 1-2-3 are actually completley the most genius films made...maybe ever. they are so utterly fucking smart that no one even realizes just how smart on so many levels they are...(despite being somewhat flawed as films from a narrative perspective i admit).
May 24, 2007, 2:35 p.m. CST
May 24, 2007, 3:10 p.m. CST
is that it is not nearly as smart as it THINKS it is. In fact, it's pretty fucking transparent when you pick it apart. That would be fine if it didn't run around like some pony-tailed fat kid that thinks he just "figured out" DARK SIDE OF THE MOON "Look how clever I am! Look how deep I am! I GET it!" In fact, I'd say if it just tried to tell it's story without all the pretentiousness, I'd like the movies a lot better. I'd also like to know exactly what is any more contrived or derivative about the Potter stories than any other adventure/ fantasy story? Some of Shakespeare's best works were adaptations of pre-existing stories and themes or historical events, but I'd never call them derivative. It's all in how you TELL the story. And I don't know about terrible acting either. The adult leads are all doing fine work within the context of the world. And the kids, all starting out as unknowns and untrained are doing fine. Sure there are no Freddie Highmores or young Jodie Fosters in the cast, but there are also no Jake Lloyds, either.
May 24, 2007, 3:33 p.m. CST
But not Harry Potter.<p>Put the bong down.
May 24, 2007, 4 p.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
<P>...did movie quotes become THE measure of a movie's importance on the pop culture? Star Wars is far from the most quoted movie in our culture. It has sunk in at a primal level - and is refrenced visually, audibly, culturally. If I were to tell you to not be all Obi Wan Kenobi about something, or told you a guy looked like Chewbacca or said someone played Halo like they were a Stormtrooper - you would know EXACTLY WTF I was talking about. Despite the fact that those aren't quotes from the movie. The Matrix and LotR have had large cultural impacts to be sure. So did Star Trek. ET. Ghostbusters. And Die Hard. But they never ruled the overall culture of the generation that embraced it.</P> <p>Quick, somebody tell me what the biggest pop-culture event of the year is. Is it Pirates? Spider-Man 3? Or the release of the last Harry Potter book? Honestly, have any of you been to a bookstore on Harry Potter release night. Adults and child alike...WAITING IN LINE for hours, if not all day...dressed as their favorite characters? Have any of you seen the online Hogwarts RP games - Where people blog as if they are students at Hogwarts? Seriously, take some time and surf the HP stuff. There is a movement as large and powerful as Star wars was back in 77-83. And it's only going to grow with time - as these consumers begin to make art and culture of their own.</p>
May 24, 2007, 4:07 p.m. CST
But we sure as hell agree on this.
May 24, 2007, 6:12 p.m. CST
I was hoping 3 would be a return to form, but based on reviews (from outside AICN), it sounds like an even more overblown version of part 2.
May 24, 2007, 6:21 p.m. CST
Maybe you're right about Potter, but I question whether or not the phenomenom will get bigger. One of the fundamental weaknesses I see with the Harry Potter series is that Harry gets older with each novel. As such, the themes get older, darker and more mature. This is a natural and inevitable process that I for one have enjoyed. Now, the current genteration has grown up with Harry. They get a year older right along with Harry (and hopefully a year more mature.) But what about the next generation, when ALL of the books will be available at one time? An eleven year old might devour the first two or three, but I wonder if he will be all that interested in a sixteen or seventeen year old Harry who comes with teenage baggage. The eleven year old reader might just loose interest after book three or so. C.S. Lewis got around this by introducing new, young characters after the second book. OF course, thats not possible with a series entitled Harry Potter. After all, book seven isn't going to feature Jenny Weasley as a main character. In short, I agree that Harry is definately the younger generation's Star Wars, but I have to question if the books will retain their appeal with the generations to come. I'd appreciate your thoughts.
May 24, 2007, 6:29 p.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
But of course if you look at the same generation, they don't share the same deep love of Star wars. It's become a part of our culture and they've absorbed it - and of course there are a fair share of devoted SW fans in that generation. But on the whole it hasn't resonated like Potter has. I mean, come on - they grew up with what are held to be the shitty movies. The other movies they got to see on DVD. And many of them grew up with the SE versions. It wasn't until last year that Lucas gave us SW on DVD without all his baggage. And even then, we had to buy the SE versions just to get those as a "Special feature." Every generation will have their thing. Lucas, Speilberg, Carpenter, et all grew up with the John Ford films. With the Kurosawa films. Those were their iconic films. Sure, there are many of us who have embraced and loved on them - but not in the way we embraced SW. Or the current gen has embraced HP. Or how the next gen will embrace whatever magical thing comes along that is special to them. The kids will always love HP. They may not become obsessed like the current crop. But they'll love it. Just like they'll love SW.
May 24, 2007, 6:33 p.m. CST
by Badger On A Bus
Of all the reviews on AICN, this is the one that I strongly agree with. Perfectly written, Mass. Pirates 3 is superb and not be missed on the cinema screen. None of this "wait for the DVD" shite. Star Wars of the current generation? I'm sure that Rush Hour 3 will complete the trilogy that we all secretly hold closest to our hearts!
May 24, 2007, 6:54 p.m. CST
... does The Kraken really die offscreen, between films? The DuPont Chick wrote that. That doesn't sound "awesome". It sounds anti-climactic.
May 24, 2007, 6:57 p.m. CST
None of the PIRATES movies are superb. Not many films are. A fine wine can be superb. The PIRATES series are fun. Sometimes very fun. But, they are all too long. Like in that first one where they make a whole fuss about getting to that island, and then they leave the island, and then they go back to the island. That was dumb.
May 24, 2007, 7:14 p.m. CST
I FECKIN HATE HARRY POTTER IF THEY WANT TO STOP EVIL FECKIN WIZARDS THEN STOP FECKIN TRAINING EVIL WIZARDS IN THAT EVIL WIZARD HOUSE IN THE SCHOOL
May 24, 2007, 7:26 p.m. CST
by Badger On A Bus
I was not aware that "superb" was limited to wine description. Is "dumb" only suitable for cinematic discussion, or can it be applied to Talkbackers, much like yourself? P.S. Only 2 outstays it's welcome.
May 24, 2007, 7:39 p.m. CST
Luke and Leia siblings? Silly Ewoks? Boba Fett's dumbass death? Vader becoming a moping sentimental slob after two movies of being an evil bastard? That fucking blob on the Emperor's hood! These are not things to evoke when trying say a film trilogy has been capped by a great third installment. Also, I don't think Dead Man's Chest brought as much to the series as Empire brought to Star Wars. I liked it better than most people seem to, but even I don't think it's up there.
May 24, 2007, 7:53 p.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
<p>Notice that red spoiler box around Duponts review? Notice the lack of one around mine? Try to keep the spoiler talk to spoiler reviews. There's, like, 4 of them.</p> <p>And anytime you try to judge a film based upon one specific plot point addressed by a critic, especially a critic that spent half of her Pirates 2 review COMPLAINING about the very existence of said plot point to begin with - you've kind of missed the point of seeing the film and judging it on its merits.</p>
May 24, 2007, 8:49 p.m. CST
Massa says :"Remember what it was like to find out that Leia and Luke were siblings? Or that Han wasn't really dead? Or when Anakin broke through years of evil to save his son, forcing you to re-examine Vader altogether? Those are the kinds of changes you can expect to the PotC series." Yeah, except IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS IN POTC. They are all one dimensional cartoons. This series is lame, the type of movie that is cool to watch on broadcast TV on a Sunday afternoon while you clean your fish tank or vacuum.
May 24, 2007, 8:51 p.m. CST
If I'm going to the proverbial desert island, I would take ROTJ over all three POTC flicks. Fuck, I'd take the Phantom Menace over them.
May 24, 2007, 9:32 p.m. CST
Yet no one admits to it.<p>No one is proud of thier Pokemon accomplishments. No one will give a shit about HP when they are older. Yet I still clutch my Lightsaber replica during every Sci-fi event.<p>And yes, quoting the media you love, counts.
May 24, 2007, 9:42 p.m. CST
... the ones who think it's AWESOME and the ones who think it's merely good! (Oh, and I guess that third camp that result in the film having 48% negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes at this point.) This is the kind of thinking that had Bush announcing he had a "mandate" with 51% of the popular vote... sigh...
May 24, 2007, 9:51 p.m. CST
by Bronx Cheer
The families of all those who were enriched by this very successful series of films will be the first ones in the "We Love POTC" anniversary party. So a bit of care should be taken when making those bold declarations.
May 24, 2007, 10:13 p.m. CST
Are you talking enriched in monetary terms? If you are, then I agree. But if you mean enriched in some other way, I gotta split hairs. Thats like saying there's going to be 30 year celebrations of The Mummy Returns. These films have been successful, yes, but worthy of a legacy? Dude, Im not feeling it. Look whats happened to the Matrix "trilogy", or to the Lord of the Rings too a much lesser extent. The people who go ga-ga of these films are fickle lovers. The next big budget, calculated blockbuster franchise will waltz along and sweep them off their feet. SW is totally different. Its in peoples blood, in their fucking souls. SW is part of the zeitgeist , it is the our modern fairy tale. POTC is just 2-3 hours of images to eat popcorn to. Thats cool and all, but its no fucking Star Wars.
May 24, 2007, 10:45 p.m. CST
by advocatos diaboli
why does this generation NEED a star wars??? star wars was an epiphany. it was a completely new form of cinema, and that pretty much only comes along ONCE. i don't think any generation since then has had its own "star wars," since no such new and influential form of cinema has arisen, which also commanded such popular following. maybe a lot of people LOVE a lot of movies now, but star wars wasn't a movie as much as it was a RUPTURE in the world of movies. p.s. harry potter is shit.
May 24, 2007, 11:45 p.m. CST
by Gary Yogurt
What an abominable grab for money, writing on the film should be done any day now. Jesus Christ.
May 25, 2007, 2:34 a.m. CST
Star Wars is one of the stories that will always stand the test of time. It brought something that had never been seen before, it broke barriers. Star Wars wasn't just an epic, it was a Greek/Shakespearian tragedy (in space).
May 25, 2007, 3:13 a.m. CST
stay after the credits for a flashward...say 10 years.
May 25, 2007, 6:04 a.m. CST
I caught the 8pm premier and the film was, in cultured terms, bloody fucking awesome. Everything about it was just so unbelievably enjoyable. I'll be seeing it again within the week for sure.
May 25, 2007, 8:40 a.m. CST
So... that's a "yes"? How disappointing. But, it's just disappointing because I am a fan of the second film, and I wanted to see Jack Sparrow get his revenge on the thing that ate him. Oh well.
May 25, 2007, 8:44 a.m. CST
I was just pointing out your hyperbole. If you have to use "superb" for a film. I'd say... "The Godfather"... or... "Jaws". Those are superb films. PIRATES are not. That is all. I have no problem with "awesome" as a description for PIRATES. That, or "really fun". Just not "superb". See, I response and I didn't even have to insult you.
May 25, 2007, 11:14 a.m. CST
by Badger On A Bus
I'm sorry, but that's your opinion alone and you do not have control over the use of the English language. As a result, I will continue to refer to Pirates as superb, superb, and superb. See, I RESPOND and I didn't even have to insult you.
May 25, 2007, 4:04 p.m. CST
The cartoon bubble in my head has Cartman dressed up like Gandolf yelling "FAGS!" at the kids playing Harry Potter. Am I the only one?? One of the many great South Park moments!
May 25, 2007, 4:21 p.m. CST
Stop being so pedantic. Definitions are very subjective. If you disagree with someone's word choice, that's your right, but keep in mind it's not *your* opinion that they're responsible to represent.
May 25, 2007, 5:17 p.m. CST
I just saw the movie and had to read reviews to see what others had to say. I don't usually pay attention to who reviews what on here, so I don't know if I've agreed with him in the past, but to say there are only 2 opions of this movie--great or good--is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I mostly enjoyed the 1st and 2nd one even though critics mostly hated par 2, but this was just plain boooooring. After almost 3 hours most people in the theater were squirming and making exasperated sighing or grunting noises. And if you think you'll be rewarded for your loooong wait, think again. The ending sucks. I even waited through what felt like 20 minutes of credits for the extra scene and it was nothing special. And before the credits rolled it looked like they were setting us up for a 4th installment to this "trilogy". I'm sure this will probably break opening weekend records, but I wish I hadn't contributed to it. And I wonder how much Disney paid for this review--I can see how some people could have though it was allright, but this makes it sound like the original Star Wars.
May 26, 2007, 9:16 a.m. CST
who goes around twanging his bow in a 'threatening manner' and rugby tackles Harry to the ground to give him a Valentines card from Ginny.
May 26, 2007, 9:19 a.m. CST
the Christmas tree which is actually a kidnapped garden gnome, who attacked Fred. He was Stunned, painted gold, stuffed into a tutu and stuck on the tree. Needless to say he wasn't very happy but couldn't do much about :)
May 27, 2007, 7:55 a.m. CST
by boromir thebrave
Been reading through this Talkback about the impact of Harry Potter and i agree (being a primary teacher) it has taken a generation of kids much the way that Dtar wars did to many of us born in the early 70's. But I have to say that i think LOTR has had a bigger effect than people give credit for. Afterall authors such as Terry Brooks, Pratchet, David Eddings, George RR Martin basicaly all fantasy autors of distinction have all agreed that Tolkien inspired their writing. Ask your Christopher Lee the effects his (Tolkiens) books had upon the universitys when they came out. Hell it even contributed to the Hippie movement so prevalent in the sixties. I believe that LOTR has had a huge effect on society in the last 50 years or more and have a generation of people quoting the books (and now the films) that dates Star Wars by two decades or more. I love Star Wars and have done since i was 7 but i can definantly say that LOTR has had more effect on me than starwars or Harry Potter ever could. The films depite obvious omissions such as Bombadil and the scouring of the shire (necessary) are surprising accurate to their source. Harry Potter is not. So i would agree Starwars has effected more people over the generations than anything else but i would put LOTR far above Harry Potter!!.
May 27, 2007, 11:48 a.m. CST
by Rich Malone
just saw this last night, and I gotta be honest, it was just ok, if that.....Most of the scenes ran entirely too long (Capt. Jack in purgatory and the crabs? That shit didn't make sense, and I got the point after they showed the multiple Capt. Jack's in the first minute of that scene, then they could've ended it when they showed him jump off the boat onto dry land)....If you want to be honest about it, this serious has always been about rollicking summer blockbuster fun mixed with nutty characters and cool adventures, which the second installmennt did the best (fell asleep on the first one, the third was too overblown..and that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate multiple storylines packed-in, just do it right and explain it to the audience...plus, the second one was funny, with the natives that held Capt. Jack hostage, emeotional, with the intorduction of Will and his father, and their deal on the ship, Jack's ensuing adventures...) When too many people leave the theater with a 'huh?' look on their face at a movie that supposed to be light fun and uncomplicated, this is never a good thing...
May 27, 2007, 6:20 p.m. CST
Did anyone else think it would have been cool if Jack's purgatory was him nailed to the floor as part of the actual Pirates of the Carribean ride? No? Okay just me then.
May 30, 2007, 2:09 p.m. CST
I apologize for being pedantic. You're right.