WHY CAN’T I REMEMBER THE SECOND “PIRATES” FILM?

WHY CAN’T I REMEMBER THE SECOND “PIRATES” FILM?

I went to a midnight screening of the second Pirates of the Caribbean on the eve of its official release and couldn’t remember a single thing about it when I woke up the next day. I am not sure if it was the cans of Foster’s me and my friends brought with us into the theater that might have helped this or if my short-term memory was starting to fade.

This didn’t happen with other films however. This is the first time it ever happened. I even remember going to a press screening of Les Mayfield’s The Man, one of the worst films in recent memory, and the fact that it has a fart joke involving nuns.

In order to prepare myself for this new Pirates film, I decided to Netflix the second one, so I can see that which I do not recall. I got it in the mail yesterday and popped it on. All I can say is this: that movie is a lot longer without the assistance of some canned Fosters. I think I started it at 5:30pm or so and it ended just after 8pm. Damn, how much pirate action can a single person take?

Then I woke up this morning, pondering what I could blog about for the six people who actually read this daily, when it happened again. I seriously have no fucking recollection of the film I just watched mere hours ago.

Pirates.jpg

So let me give this a good thinking… I remember something about a giant wheel and a sword fight. I remember something about Kiera Knightley having to disguise herself as a man while on board a ship. But does she really have to ‘disguise’ herself? I remember watching Domino and almost wanting to kill myself when she showed her chest. It was like I was staring at Steve McCollum from my Little League baseball team from my youth all those years ago. Why does that chick look so much like a dude? Why are my non-existent boobs bigger than hers? Why do people think she is hot? She is like the older sister of the Olsen twins or something. Just as creepy and just as gross.

My brain goes on that Kiera Knightley tangent and prevents any further memories of the film. I remember two or three things about it and I just watched it not even a day ago.

There are 8:00pm screenings of the third Pirates film all over the country tonight. Being the theater-going geek that I am, I will make the journey to Universal Studios to view the film in their spectacular AMC Loews Cineplex. Cans of Fosters will no doubt be in my man-purse. The real question now is, will I remember this film in the morning?




Posted on May 24, 2007 in Blogs by
Buffer


If you liked this article then you may also like the following Film Threat articles:
Popular Stories from Around the Web
25 Comments on "WHY CAN’T I REMEMBER THE SECOND “PIRATES” FILM?"

  1. Professor Tom on Thu, 24th May 2007 11:18 am 

    You’re getting to the point where you don’t remember any films. First Mavieric and now Pirates. This is called Alzheimer’s.


    Report Comment

  2. Kate on Thu, 24th May 2007 11:22 am 

    This is the best drawing I have ever seen in my life.


    Report Comment

  3. Felix Vasquez Jr. on Thu, 24th May 2007 12:19 pm 

    Dead Man’s Chest was garbage. It was only a two hour preamble to the third film.


    Report Comment

  4. Saimfeld on Thu, 24th May 2007 1:26 pm 

    You look like a monkey in that picture. Aw are you the little monkey from the movie? There is a monkey, isn’t there? Damn, I don’t remember that movie too well myself… you just may have something there.


    Report Comment

  5. Dave Lawler on Thu, 24th May 2007 5:52 pm 

    We pretty much covered this with “Maverick”. I got the DVD for my Mother as a Christmas present. She’s a fan. She loved it.

    The sequel was built primarily as a lead-in for a third movie, a second sequel. I thought about how “Empire” was pretty much a lead-in for “Jedi”, but there was the crucial difference in that “Empire” was enormously entertaining whereas “Dead Man’s Chest” plays as a series of gags, CGI, and action set pieces all written around a thin premise, [kind of like porn with sex scenes as the set pieces (or sex pieces) with a really thin narrative keeping it together] and reinvented mythology (the Kraken of “Titans” rocked – who cares about giant squids?)

    Mr. Ferraro is going to forget this trilogy ever happened in ten years, as will many, many people. Such a ludicrous waste of resources and talent that really does give legitimacy to the concept of movies as disposable product, throwaway fun.


    Report Comment

  6. Professor Tom on Thu, 24th May 2007 7:52 pm 

    Mr. Ferraro is going to forget this trilogy ever happened in ten years, as will many, many people. Such a ludicrous waste of resources and talent that really does give legitimacy to the concept of movies as disposable product, throwaway fun.

    And that’s sad considering that the second film was the second all-time grossing movie.

    Tell me Dave (and Mike, this goes for you too) do either of you remember a little movie called Titanic?


    Report Comment

  7. Michael Ferraro on Thu, 24th May 2007 8:43 pm 

    I remember Titanic but only because James Cameron made it.

    And I just saw the third Pirates and, well, I’ll tell you tomorrow.


    Report Comment

  8. Dave Lawler on Thu, 24th May 2007 11:32 pm 

    I also follow Cameron’s work so it was no difficult chore remembering “Titanic” – I bought it and it sits on my video shelf, just waiting to be played. I look at it occasionally. “Titanic” has a timeless appeal for me. I saw the movie several times in the movie theater, it was where I took my wife on our first date; we were married exactly two years later, so it’s hard to forget.

    Plus it was raining that night. I didn’t have an umbrella and she put her umbrella over my head to keep me dry. That’s when I knew she liked me.

    “Titanic” might be a bad example of my memory of movies. Let’s see … “Return of the King” was a bit of a jumble, but I still remember what happened. Something about a ring … slow motion shots of Vigo … something about a spider?


    Report Comment

  9. Professor Tom on Fri, 25th May 2007 6:28 am 

    Mike, I was just wanting to make sure that you remembered the highest all-time grossing movie since you couldn’t seem to remember the second.

    Dave, that’s a really sweet story. I wished I had an expirence like that. But I think the spider thing was in King Kong.


    Report Comment

  10. mat g. on Fri, 25th May 2007 6:29 am 

    Mikey why don’t you remember anything? Maybe you actually saw…nothing…

    You should definitely give Batman another run.


    Report Comment

  11. Professor Tom on Fri, 25th May 2007 6:35 am 

    I had a friend send me the following text message:

    Dude,

    Just to warn you Pirates III is quite possibly the most horrible plotless movie ever made. It was so horrible that I wanted to hurl and burn down the theater [NOTE: it’s a hellava theater] and hunt down and murder the fucking writers. The movie was so bad that it made Spiderman III look like a fucking Shakespearian masterpiece.

    Johnny Depp was of course fantasic in the movie, but just to give an example of how horribly cheesey the movie was the character Tia Dalma (sp?) turns into a fucking giant in one scene. If you wish to persver your memory of the first two for the love of God don’t go see Pirates III.

    My Head hurts it was so bad!


    Report Comment

  12. Michael Ferraro on Fri, 25th May 2007 7:01 am 

    The spider thing was in Return of the King. Frodo fights a giant spider in a cave somewhere near hour 7 of the film.


    Report Comment

  13. Professor Tom on Fri, 25th May 2007 7:52 am 

    Great reply, Mike!

    ;)


    Report Comment

  14. Jim F on Fri, 25th May 2007 8:23 am 

    At least you still hate the Spiderman franchise. Of course, Titanic remains the worst movie I’ve never seen.


    Report Comment

  15. Felix Vasquez Jr. on Fri, 25th May 2007 2:12 pm 

    That’s because it is the worst movie ever MADE, Jim F. That should be a fact.

    I’ve seen it twice and it’s a painfully stupid and horrible experience.


    Report Comment

  16. Dave Lawler on Fri, 25th May 2007 3:37 pm 

    “Titanic” has undergone a (perhaps unfair) wave of revisionist criticism. Remember when it came out? It was the Winter, Spring, and Summer of “Titanic”; like when the first “Batman” came out. You couldn’t go anywhere without hearing about it.

    “Titanic”, for all it’s faults, was memorable and an exciting movie-going experience before the “Star Wars” prequels were released.

    It’s interesting to note that Cameron was set up to do the “Spiderman” movies originally. I wonder what he would have brought to the franchise. He goes all out for his projects and he doesn’t let him get bullied by money-mad producers.


    Report Comment

  17. Felix Vasquez Jr. on Fri, 25th May 2007 3:52 pm 

    “Titanic” has undergone a (perhaps unfair) wave of revisionist criticism.

    Sorry to state the obvious, but that’s a matter of opinion. All fans these days feel the stuff they love gets an unfair rap. “American Idol” gets an unfair rap, “Cabin Fever” gets an unfair rap, “Flava of Love” gets an unfair rap.

    I feel the movie’s bad rap is well deserving. “American Idol” is a craze, and so was “Milli Vanilli,” that doesn’t mean it was all undeserving of a bad rap.

    “Titanic,” for me, is the worst movie ever made. It’s bloated, overwrought, vapid, over acted, and about two hours too long.


    Report Comment

  18. Professor Tom on Fri, 25th May 2007 9:24 pm 

    One definately has to be in the mood for Titanic the movie to be sure (at least the first half) but I dare say that it is one of the best productions ever put together.


    Report Comment

  19. Felix Vasquez Jr. on Fri, 25th May 2007 10:23 pm 

    I strongly disagree to the point of shouts, but whatever floats your ark.


    Report Comment

  20. Michael Ferraro on Fri, 25th May 2007 11:00 pm 

    “Titanic,” for me, is the worst movie ever made. It’s bloated, overwrought, vapid, over acted, and about two hours too long.

    This sentence reads better with:

    “Spider-Man,” for me, is the worst movie ever made. It’s bloated, overwrought, vapid, over acted, and about two hours too long.

    At least Titanic looked somewhat good.


    Report Comment

  21. Professor Tom on Sat, 26th May 2007 7:41 am 

    damn! Mike’s on a roll!


    Report Comment

  22. Felix Vasquez Jr. on Sat, 26th May 2007 2:37 pm 

    Nah, it didn’t.

    Comparing the two is like comparing the electric chair to being stoned to death.


    Report Comment

  23. Mike Ferraro on Sun, 27th May 2007 5:24 pm 

    Titanic, of course, being the quick and easy death (the chair). Spider-Man being the long and painful one (stoning).


    Report Comment

  24. Felix Vasquez Jr. on Sun, 27th May 2007 6:15 pm 

    Si, senor. Si.


    Report Comment

  25. Luke on Sun, 4th Nov 2007 12:12 am 

    Yep. Titanic is continually getting a bad rap. Don’t even compare Titanic with either Spider-Man or Tim Burton’s Batman. We’re talking about crap versus a testament to filmmaking. Titanic is the latter. Dramatically, visually, viscerally, Titanic is timeless, unbound, brilliant, and terrific. There. I said my piece.


    Report Comment

Tell us what you're thinking...





Comments are governed by the Terms of Use of this Site. Click on the "Report Comment" link if you feel a comment is in violation of the Terms of Use, and the comment will be reviewed appropriately.