2006-09-04 03:35:19 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
the first one, the sequels are never as good
2006-09-04 03:37:26 · answer #1 · answered by emmamac14 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2006-09-04 03:44:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first one. It was well structured and hangs together as a complete film and story in its own right whilst still leaving the possibility of a sequel.
The second one is, first of all, a sequel, and almost by definition can't be as good as the first one. There are so many loose ends that could have been, but weren't, tied up by the end. It was a long film and I didn't mind it being so long, I was really enjoying it, until the end. It feels to me to be bad story telling to not be able to wrap at least a few things up in two and a half hours. I'm not so much bothered about Captain Jack being eaten - that's a good cliffhanger that will keep us going until next year, but what about the whole Davy Jones business? Fair enough if the latter two films go together, but they should be viewable in their own rights too, they shouldn't be so dependent on each other.
2006-09-05 10:26:52 · answer #3 · answered by reddragon105 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Q1: Actors. Their Johb demands the main skills. Q2: Tom Hanks & Robin Wright: Forrest Gump Orlando Bloom & Keira Knightly: Pirates Of The Carribean Johnny Depp & Winona Ryder: Edward Scissorhands
2016-11-06 09:52:37 · answer #4 · answered by awad 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to say Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. The first one focused too much on Orlando Bloom for my liking and like all good sequels, such as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and Attack Of The Clones and Indiana Jones and The Temple Of Doom, it was dark and left you wanting to come back and see what happened to your favourite characters in the next film.
2006-09-05 01:26:53 · answer #5 · answered by Jester 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definetly number 1, it just made more sense. The second one was good, but it seemed as if it was resting on the funniness to get through the movie. Maybe it's because the second movie is the middle of the story. Guess we'll all just have to wait for movie number three.
2006-09-04 03:54:09 · answer #6 · answered by Ai-Shiteru 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I loved the first one but I think the second one will make a lot more sense once we've seen the third film and have the story finished. But yeah, the first Pirates film was just brilliant.
2006-09-04 03:54:44 · answer #7 · answered by catchytune666 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course 2 because 1 is boring but 2 has a continue & part 2 is wonderful
2006-09-04 06:31:30 · answer #8 · answered by bradpitt is the best 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. 1. The 2nd is just a way of getting to the 3rd film.
2006-09-08 03:01:25 · answer #9 · answered by Bless 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh i love them both
1 was really funny but two was alot more drama
I Shouted nooooo when he died in 2 lol but
1 was probley better coz two had a bad ending
If it would of carried on and didnt end when barbosa said his line it would of been 2
but its 1
2006-09-04 03:38:58 · answer #10 · answered by kayytea_h 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the first one. Didn't seem 2 had as much Depp in it! The story wasn't as good either but the effects were just as great.
2006-09-04 03:40:32 · answer #11 · answered by gripgirl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋