Well, on a second viewing I had a much better time with it. I still feel it has pacing issues, but I'd put it about on par with the first movie. The stuff it does well, it does really well. My second viewing bumped it up from a 2 and half or three out of five to a solid FOUR. Highly entertaining and worth seeing on the big screen for the FX alone. Can't wait for AT WORLD'S END.

MATT

2.5 hours and it felt like 2.5 hours. Not that thats a bad thing but I feel it had some pacing issues. It was long, but it wasn't unreasonably long. When I walked out of 2.5 hours of Superman I felt that I could have watched another hour of that. After 2.5 hours of POTC I was ready to get out of the theatre.

A very simple story, which is good, its summertime I wasn't looking for anything deep. However this might have been a little TOO simple.

The action scenes were done very well. They were silly because it was meant to be silly. It didn't take itself seriously and thats a nice change from what I've been seeing lately. However, they did seem to draw themselves out a little too long.

Johnny Depp is the best actor in the business. Hands down.

In the end there was a lot of style and not a whole lot of substance.

I give it 3.5/5 stars. 2.5/5 if it weren't for Johnny Depp. I'll be there for the third one.

I can't see hwo anyone that didn't like the first one would enjoy this one. It's very much more of the same but on a grander scale.

I actually liked this one better than the first one (which was overhyped IMO). It was fun to watch. The perfect popcorn movie. One of the only problems I have is consistency though. It did seem like a whole bunch of ideas cobbled together with no official rules. I think Gore Verbinski is partly to blame. Granted, he's a very good director with imagination, but his movies sometimes tend to lack clarity. I was totally confused about the mythology at times during POTC2 because it wasn't making sense. That's what my problem was with The Weather Man also. It was a movie that was trying to be bigger & deeper than it actually was.

I actually saw it on Saturday, and I loved it! I'm going back next weekend to see it again.

Interesting to see how many loved this. I didn't. In fact, about 1/3 of the way through both my wife and I considered walking out. It was just convoluted and boring. This coming from two who LOVED the first movie. However, things picked up once the main characters were together and I actually enjoyed the last half. It did not quite redeem the movie as a whole though. I give it a C.

Some have compared this with a Matrix sequel and unfortunately I must agree. GV just seemed to want to cram too much into this one. It was hard to tell what was going on and how each plot thread related to the others most of the time. It felt like Matrix Reloaded all over again for me - sad to say.

Apperently, $135Million dollars worth of people saw it... Holy crap thats a huge 3days Hual.....

Not to mention oh so dreamy...

thought it was pretty good. the ending setup the 3rd movie nicely like most middle of a triology movie. there were some parts that were a little confusing like others said, but maybe i just need to watch the first movie again to refresh myself on it.

Took the kids this afternoon ( 2 teenagers). We all thought it was a better ride than the Disney ride it was based on. Yes it will be a little too intense for younger viewers. I did see a couple younger kids leaving.

The cliff-hanger ending was a 2 edged sword, it was so abrupt, it left me wanting more, but at 2 1/2 hours I was ready for it to end. Will definately pick this up on DVD, and perhaps see it again at the dollar theater.

Sold out everywhere I went today. I guess this is why I generally avoid opening weekend. The person I went with was pain in the ass and didn't want to wait so I guess I'll go alone mid-week.

Eh... some good things in there but a lot of mediocre stuff as well... maybe I'll like it better on HD. (pardon me, blu ray)

Anyone else get a Willow flashback towards the end there?

Same here...

The first one was so refreshing and different that it was just genius. I get that is it is a sequel and it is supposed to be similar but for some reason this just didn’t do it for me. More of the same here is just more of the same, but not any better, the pacing is just terrible and the movie drags. I kept thinking the whole time, “Why don’t l like this?” AND I love movies like this! It just felt flat and stale; I would be stunned if this doesn’t drop about 65% next week. I really wanted to like this too, this was one of the movies I had really wanted to see, my son liked it though and would see it again.

People keep saying it "dragged" or it had "poor pacing" or needed "15 to 30 minuntes cut out", and in such an off-handed way. Can anyone be more specific in how the pacing could be improved or the film better edited? I feel that those lines are used so often that they are worthless now if not backed it up.

I'm sure everyone involved wanted to make it as concise and flow as great as possible. People are payed just to edit a film after all. No one sets out to have a terribly paced film that is overlong.

I had little problems with the film's editing and in fact found the pace perfect after the first 20 minutes or so. I couldn't believe 2.5 hours passed. I saw it at midnight and was suprised how energized I felt at the end.

It's sort of surprising pacing can be so opinion based. I mean you would think that there would at least be some common ground with it.

I've had a question about the character Gibbs (Kevin McNally) since the first film, and this seems like as good a place as any to ask it.

In the first film he's part of the crew that picks up young Will Turner from the wreackage. The ship is clearly not a pirate ship, and Elizabeth knows him, so it seems likely he was a good guy then.

But we know he crewed with Captain Jack and Bootstrap Bill, presumably before the mutiny that lead to the curse. Later, when Jack is looking for a crew, he finds Gibbs on Tortuga, so it seems he's become a pirate again.

Is there any explanation of his "respectable time" between his times with Jack? Did he become a privateer or something?

I thought it was good. Not as good as the first movie (hard to capture lightning in a bottle), but entertaining nonetheless.

Good: Good performances all around, funny dialogue and inventive sequences.
Bad: The film suffered from some pacing problems, and I was sometimes confused as to who was on what ship, and who was dead and who was alive.

Loved it, except for the prolonged 3-way sword fight. It just got too slapsticky afterwards. But everything before and after that was great. Right behind Superman Returns and in front of MI3 as my personal favorites this summer.

Seems to me you want to keep after those that do not think this is the greatest movie ever like you seem to do. Personally I could care less if you “feel” those comments are worthless if not backed up. BIG deal, it is just a movie I didn’t like it is was tooooooooo long and slow, they should have cut out some if the filler, the two characters from the first movie the one with the fake eye and his partner, snip gone, they added nothing to the film except to run away with the chest, THAT would have improved the pacing of the film IMHO of course. I am not going to give you every detail of what could be taken out or shortened, you liked the movie great, LOTS of people did, and many have also stated that they do not like it. This is a board to post your reviews of the movie, believe it or not, not everyone is going to agree. No matter how many questions you continue to ask those of us that didn’t like it will change our opinions on it, at least not mine anyway.

Specific example of how the pacing could be improved: too much time and dialogue were spent on Jonathon Pryce and the sub-plot with the East India Trading Company.

Plot progession seemed to stall out a lot, several character scenes didn't particularly build character nor add anything to the movie, quite a few "Hey lets show this, because it'll look cool!" scenes (these are the ones that tend to drag for some and not others). Basically, pacing issues are way more obvious when you aren't into the movie, if you're into it - it could go on for 4 hours with someone reading a phone book and you'd be happy, if not, the standard runtime is entirely too long. Noteably, it's harder to be objective when you're really into it, and thats great, but there were numerous scenes that held no relavence to the movie, character, or anything, which is fine in summer flicks - but also where the differences in opinion over pacing comes into play. Maybe some of it will be required for Part III, but as it stands, there were bits that could have been handled a bit better.

Basically, the movie felt like an extended cut. And I, personally, felt every minute of it.

I'm guessing this plays into the third film big time.

Agreed. I can see myself sitting down and watching the second and third parts back to back when they're on DVD.

I did like the movie, and I think they could've cut out a few things:

- The other ship going into Tortuga
- The two pirates from the first that try to steal the chest
- The cannibal action sequence
- The end action sequences

I'm glad they didn't, but if I had to choose, it would be those. At most, you're looking at maybe losing 20 minutes or so. If you're going to have a 130 minute movie you might as well have a 150 minute movie. I defy anyone to come up with an hour's worth of cuts that keep this movie as good. I don't think it can be done, in my opinion.

The idea isn't to cut as many minutes as possible, it's to lose the things that distract you from the main story...the "looking at your watch" moments, if you will.