User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 735 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Jun 11, 2011
    7
    This second installment continues this heroic franchise as Jack Sparrow and his crew members face a new enemy known as Davy Jones who captains the Flying Dutchman. Feeling like he has no choice, Jack must owe his dept to him, but has to get help from Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann first, unaware that they are sentenced to be hanged by Lord Cutler Bucket unless they can give him Jack'sThis second installment continues this heroic franchise as Jack Sparrow and his crew members face a new enemy known as Davy Jones who captains the Flying Dutchman. Feeling like he has no choice, Jack must owe his dept to him, but has to get help from Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann first, unaware that they are sentenced to be hanged by Lord Cutler Bucket unless they can give him Jack's compass to join him on his quest to defeat Davy Jones.

    (sigh) This was the only movie I've missed in theaters in 2006, but thank god I watched it on DVD rental at the library and really enjoyed it. I can't believe I'm saying this, but... this sequel is not as good as the first movie.

    The actors from the first movie did very well at their performances, The CGI was cool, The action was even more cooler, and the storyline was well-paced, but the dialogue was bad, the storytelling was rushed, and it has some flaws throughout the whole movie.

    Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead's Man's Chest may not be the best movie of all time, but it is in no doubt a worthy follow up to the first with solid performances and even greater action sequences.

    7/10
    Expand
  2. May 26, 2011
    9
    If you're reading this then you're probably alive. If you're alive then you'd probably like this movie. I personally loved it. It is a sequel to a film that didn't need a sequel, yet adding this movie to the franchise just made it a whole lot better. You wouldn't really need to see the first film to understand this one, so don't worry if you haven't watched The Black Pearl just yet.If you're reading this then you're probably alive. If you're alive then you'd probably like this movie. I personally loved it. It is a sequel to a film that didn't need a sequel, yet adding this movie to the franchise just made it a whole lot better. You wouldn't really need to see the first film to understand this one, so don't worry if you haven't watched The Black Pearl just yet. Seriously, get the -blam- off this website and watch this movie. Expand
  3. Dec 30, 2011
    7
    The whole story at the heart gets stronger although it isn't told very well.,so basically the second installment is lackluster, but offers some clever camerawork that can be useful to know in the third installment. It still has some great action, clever humor and dazzling visuals. I give this movie 74%.
  4. TheoL.
    Jul 9, 2006
    9
    Don't buy into all the negative and lukewarm reviews the "professional" critics are giving this film. Dead Man's Chest is an absolute blast!
  5. CharlesL.
    Jul 10, 2006
    5
    I love the way all the dissenting opinions for this movie appear to be well thought out critiques, where as the positive votes read like PR-cookie-cutter-praise-em-post-em notes. I never was into the whole POTC thing. I never went to see the first movie. Not interested. That said, I saw it on cable eventually some lazy Sunday afternoon and was wonderfully entertained. "Wow" was the word I love the way all the dissenting opinions for this movie appear to be well thought out critiques, where as the positive votes read like PR-cookie-cutter-praise-em-post-em notes. I never was into the whole POTC thing. I never went to see the first movie. Not interested. That said, I saw it on cable eventually some lazy Sunday afternoon and was wonderfully entertained. "Wow" was the word that came to mind. I had misjudged the movie, and was pleasantly surprised at how fun the movie was. So, now we have a sequel. I went to a later showing tonight to help avoid most of the youngsters in the crowd, and still the movie was jam packed with patrons. And so began our next ride on Disney's flagship voyage. 2 1/2 hours later I am so bored, I left the theatre as soon as the first credit rolled. I understand there are 10 extra seconds at the end. Who cares is all I can say. The movie is one incredibly long overbloated setup for the third installment. Characters seem to be out of touch with their characters from the first movie, I cared more for the villian than I did our heroes, the Kraken was used too many times. The beach scene was 10 min too long. Have no idea what the heck was up with the cannibal Sparrow scene? (I mean why would you possibly think cannabilism could be utilized as a crude joke is beyond me.) There were some great action sequences, although I agree with one reviewer who stated that so much action was present on screen that you felt as though you were wrapped in psychadelic wallpaper. (And I don't think he meant that as a compliment ;-) I also perceived the dialog as difficult to make out at times. Whether that was a function of the mix or extreme dialect slurring I am not sure. But I found myself several times wishing I could back up the movie with my remote to catch what was just stated. CGI effects were pretty amazing on Davy Jones! The kraken was pretty cool as well. I found the villian to be the most compelling character. At least he was honorable and true to self. Overall though, I still have to stick to my main points. Laboriously long, weak script, horrible plot elements and character asassinations. You know..Jack Sparrow won our hearts in the first movie. Why would you now seek to cause audiences to re-evaluate that opinion? Tasting a toe?? Obstensibly throwing away peoples lives he had already saved? Being forced to take the higher road by a deceitful womanly misdirection? Preferring to root for the villian than the so called "heroes" is not a good idea Hollywood. Ehh. Spend your money. Perhaps you will like it. Ultimately I felt let down and a bit irritated with the whole experience. The pacing was all off for me. Expand
  6. TravisM.
    Jul 13, 2006
    5
    The original stands alone with some good classic-style swashbuckling sword fighting scenes, whitty humour, and an awesome storyline. This second movie was too long, and mainly tries to cash in on the original movie's success. More slapstick humour without a decent fight scene unless you're looking for a 'Clash of the Titans' creature which apparently can crush one ship The original stands alone with some good classic-style swashbuckling sword fighting scenes, whitty humour, and an awesome storyline. This second movie was too long, and mainly tries to cash in on the original movie's success. More slapstick humour without a decent fight scene unless you're looking for a 'Clash of the Titans' creature which apparently can crush one ship in a matter of 3 seconds but takes 10 minutes to devour The Black Pearl. Anyways if the 3rd movie makes up for all the 2nd's shortcomings then we'll look back at this film as meerly a springboard in the storyline for the last movie; otherwise it'll be another waste of 3 hours (once you add in trailers and if you decide to stay for the unnecessary scene after the credits). Expand
  7. JackH.
    Jul 9, 2006
    9
    A terrific film simply in its change from the original. Rather than using the formula of many film series by making it just Curse of the Black Pearl with a different villain and more characters (which it seems at first), the film instead reinvents every element used in the original and simply adds to it. I have already seen it twice, and like the first, it can't be viewed just once. A terrific film simply in its change from the original. Rather than using the formula of many film series by making it just Curse of the Black Pearl with a different villain and more characters (which it seems at first), the film instead reinvents every element used in the original and simply adds to it. I have already seen it twice, and like the first, it can't be viewed just once. The main flaw in this film is the same as any second film in a planned trilogy: it cannot stand alone eg. Back to the Future Part II, The Empire Strikes Back. That said, it works brilliantly in the way it was intended: it gives us a more in depth look at the characters in play to prepare us for the final film. Expand
  8. BrianM.
    Aug 5, 2006
    9
    I am surprised to see this film getting quite a bit of negative feedback. I'm afraid this film got slammed merely because of the high standards set by the first film. People have a nasty tendancy to either expect too much from a sequel, or simply NOT want to like a sequel, and try hard to find flaws and dismiss the film. This would be a shame in the case of 'Pirates of the I am surprised to see this film getting quite a bit of negative feedback. I'm afraid this film got slammed merely because of the high standards set by the first film. People have a nasty tendancy to either expect too much from a sequel, or simply NOT want to like a sequel, and try hard to find flaws and dismiss the film. This would be a shame in the case of 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest'. The film is really well done, and is without a doubt one of the best movies so far this year. Some people complained about the 2 and a half hour length, but I thought the time simply flew by. It did not feel in the least bit slow or boring. I look at it as getting more of my money's worth! Moving on, the acting in this film was very well done! Even Orlando Bloom gave a passable performance. Depp did not disappoint with a great performance as Captain Jack Sparrow. For those complaining that the film went 'nowhere' they could not be more wrong. 'Dead Man's Chest' simply is the second act to the overall story, comparable to 'The Empire Strikes Back' in the Original Star Wars Trilogy. Overall, this was a great film, that should not be missed. It is one of the few family films I have thoroughly enjoyed, and did not leave me groaning. I eagerly await the next installment to this franchise. This has easily become one of my favorite Disney properties. Expand
  9. RandyM.
    Aug 6, 2006
    9
    Pirates is truly a wonderful movie. It is a huge step up from the original, and one of summer's most delightful films. I abosolutely loved the shocker at the end.
  10. NickM.
    Aug 3, 2006
    9
    Ummmm, im sorry but what is wrong with this movie, its is a funny, awsome action, you never know what will happen next, and it has a plot twist in the end that is worthy of shamalamalyn(exuse my spellings, its a hard name to spell) the only flaw is the fact it leaves you needing wanting to see more of the movie, hey, it convinced me to see the 3rd movie the day it comes out. and please, Ummmm, im sorry but what is wrong with this movie, its is a funny, awsome action, you never know what will happen next, and it has a plot twist in the end that is worthy of shamalamalyn(exuse my spellings, its a hard name to spell) the only flaw is the fact it leaves you needing wanting to see more of the movie, hey, it convinced me to see the 3rd movie the day it comes out. and please, the complaint about the length, look at the lord of the rings series, all very long, and classics. Expand
  11. Nov 9, 2012
    6
    The second dose of pirate mayhem is scattershot and chunky as a whole, but delivers in the moment, and is fueled by some breathtaking storm sequences.
  12. Jul 24, 2015
    10
    ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................a extraodinary second part
  13. Aaron
    Jul 9, 2006
    10
    In a single word: Fantastic.
  14. Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Awesome second chapter to the series. I gotta say, ILM really tricked me with Davy Jones, because I had no idea his face was actually computer generated. Great work!
  15. JoeK.
    Dec 20, 2006
    10
    I love this movie, a great sequel to a great trilogy.
  16. OrlaB.
    Jul 30, 2006
    10
    This Movie was a great movie to watch. Sometimes it made you jump with fright but others were alright! Sometimes I didn't quite make it out, but most of the time it was grand. I thought it would be an Overly Long movie, but actually it wasn't too bad. It was a great Movie to watch and I think most people would enjoy it. All the actors AND actresses were brilliant in it. This Movie was a great movie to watch. Sometimes it made you jump with fright but others were alright! Sometimes I didn't quite make it out, but most of the time it was grand. I thought it would be an Overly Long movie, but actually it wasn't too bad. It was a great Movie to watch and I think most people would enjoy it. All the actors AND actresses were brilliant in it. Especially Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp. Brilliant actors they are.If you haven't gone to see it go see it soon, and don't worry about it being s cary coz it ain't!!!! Enjoy!!! Orla. Expand
  17. moeder
    Aug 15, 2006
    10
    wow what a fantastic movie why are you so negative about this movie the story was what i didn't expected it is wonderfull the action the humor everything i love this movie eand the end marvelous.
  18. JakeB.
    Aug 9, 2006
    10
    'Dead Man's Chest' is one of the years best and most exhilarating film experiences. A masterpiece pure and simple. Th plot is in the most simplistic terms not the point. Like a Dashiell Hammett novel it's all about the aura and dialouge. Not to mention characters, trust me the film has MANY of those. But, I'll attempt a brief plot summary. Jack Sparrow owes a debt 'Dead Man's Chest' is one of the years best and most exhilarating film experiences. A masterpiece pure and simple. Th plot is in the most simplistic terms not the point. Like a Dashiell Hammett novel it's all about the aura and dialouge. Not to mention characters, trust me the film has MANY of those. But, I'll attempt a brief plot summary. Jack Sparrow owes a debt to the ultra- heavy of the sea, Davy Jones... the payment... his soul, well that or 100 other souls. To slight Davy Jones Jack gets assistance from Will Turner. Little does Jack know Will and his fiancé Elizabeth are being hunted for helping Sparrow, a known pirate escape a grizzly fate. The only way of achieving freedom is retrieving Jack's compass for the evil Lord Beckett. Will gets involved for more than he bargained for and has to battle against Jones at Sparrow's side. Acting wise 'Chest' has nearly no rough patches. Depp brings undeniable comedic energy to Sparrow and though un-recognizable physically, Nighy's Jones is a wonderful villain. Plus, Bloom has seemingly improved since the first outing. The effects are dazzling but that goes without saying. As to the detractors who complain the entire film is setup for number three, I tell you this: It's the best damn setup money can buy! Overall: A Rousing fun and more than a bottle a' rum Matey! P.S. Odds are Depp will not receive an Oscar for his work (sequels are rarely honored) but he sure as hell deserves one! It's the best male performance all year! Expand
  19. DeannaH
    Aug 3, 2007
    10
    Really great movie!!!!!!! I love Johnny Depp!!
  20. KipM.
    Aug 27, 2006
    10
    A great movie but some parts i didnt get until the 2nd time i saw it but theres still things i have no clue about what going to happen in the story. But i still give it a ten!:) i cant wait for the 3rd movie!
  21. Sep 24, 2011
    5
    "Dead Man's Chest" starts out with a cheerful performance by Johnny Depp and ends with a terrible conclusion. Ultimately the movie is a mindless blockbuster, a movie you would expect.
  22. TheCritic
    Jul 10, 2006
    5
    God AWFUL!!!! Whoever liked the first won't like this piece of crap that has WAY to many corny jokes and a confusing plotline. The only plus for it was Johnny Depp's awesome performance as Sparrow.
  23. BrianA.
    Jul 8, 2006
    3
    I liked the first film enough, but I feel like this movie is just a crude, overlengthy, and boring sequel that was written in a few minutes, and filmed in about as many. Nothing in the film is that impressive, the characters don't really grow or flesh out, and the CGI is second rate. Reminds me of another trilogy of films that started out really great, and then got worse and worse as I liked the first film enough, but I feel like this movie is just a crude, overlengthy, and boring sequel that was written in a few minutes, and filmed in about as many. Nothing in the film is that impressive, the characters don't really grow or flesh out, and the CGI is second rate. Reminds me of another trilogy of films that started out really great, and then got worse and worse as they went on (Matrix anyone?) Expand
  24. JasmineJ.
    Jul 11, 2006
    0
    I can't believe anyone would call this their favorite movie of all time. It was loud, obnoxious and pointless. Best movie of the year? Try most annoying disappointment of the year. Pirates 1 was great. This chapter was on the other hand, a great bore.
  25. JohnnyB.
    Jul 10, 2006
    1
    I had a very hard time sitting through this movie. It was all over the place, frenzied, but not fun. I gave it a 1 because the visuals were sometimes good, but if not for that i would give it a zero. Painful to sit through once, and i won't subject myself to Pirates3.
  26. MichaelC.
    Jul 10, 2006
    9
    I Agree totally with Jack H. who states wisely that this movie cannot stand alone! it is the 2nd movie of a trilogy, and does just what it is supposed to do...keep you entertained and build up to the 3rd. Of course its not better than the 1st because the first is fresh and new. Though it is lacking plot, and gets a whole lot of nowhere for its 2 1/2 hours...Its FUN! no 2nd movie has ever I Agree totally with Jack H. who states wisely that this movie cannot stand alone! it is the 2nd movie of a trilogy, and does just what it is supposed to do...keep you entertained and build up to the 3rd. Of course its not better than the 1st because the first is fresh and new. Though it is lacking plot, and gets a whole lot of nowhere for its 2 1/2 hours...Its FUN! no 2nd movie has ever been the best of the trilogy...all it does is build up to the 3rd, and give a lot of action and laughs to get you there. A Great Film! Expand
  27. [Anonymous]
    Jul 7, 2006
    2
    Too long, and with no plot to speak of. It wasn't even laughably bad.
  28. DaniA.
    Jul 9, 2006
    2
    Coming into the movie theater I was ready for another spine tingling beginning like the first, hearing a little girls quiet voice over the waves, singing the song that you would most likely hear at a bar, in an innocent, almost dreamy manner, "Yo, ho, Yo, ho a pirates life for me...." Instead, we start off with Elizabeth, standing sopping wet in the pouring rain, at what we almost Coming into the movie theater I was ready for another spine tingling beginning like the first, hearing a little girls quiet voice over the waves, singing the song that you would most likely hear at a bar, in an innocent, almost dreamy manner, "Yo, ho, Yo, ho a pirates life for me...." Instead, we start off with Elizabeth, standing sopping wet in the pouring rain, at what we almost instantly know is a wedding, her wedding. At first I'm thinking, "where are all the guests?", then, "has she been stood up at the alter?" then, "...what? But what jolted me out of my confusion, and into pure dumbfoundment was a mob of English soldiers storming through the large doors with Will, and I'm still not sure whats happening! The entire movie draged on for WAYY longer than it should, and then at the end I came out wondering what the heck everyone had said! The dialouge was completely incoherent, I literally could not understand a word that some of the pirates uttered! All I have to say is that this was a catastrophy and that (unlike Pirates 1) I would not go see it again. Expand
  29. SorenS.
    Aug 9, 2006
    1
    I dislike the movie very much. I expect lot more than this, but in return got nothing! Very nonoriginal. The kind of thing I wish Hollywood doesn't make anymore. Because I look for moves that is smart. Which this movie is dumb. I am sorry.
  30. Nathan
    Jul 10, 2006
    2
    One of the worst movies I've seen so far this summer. It was slow, boring, and overly long. This movie was a huge dissappointment. Don't go to the theater to see it. Wait til dvd, or better yet don't see it at all.
  31. Leigh
    Jul 13, 2006
    0
    After enduring meandering, tedious subplot after meandering, tedious subplot the film finally reveals the actual plot, just in time to roll the credits. Too many dull distractions serve only to litter and confuse the otherwise stale and overused pirate puns and the acting-by-numbers performances. Apparently the cinema manager isn't able to give me back my 2 1/2 hours...be warned.
  32. RickDangerous
    Jul 15, 2006
    10
    10 out of 10. This movie beyond delivered. This is the best movie of the summer, if not year. Keira Knightley, Johnny, and Orlando all gave timeless performances in the tradition of Indiana Jones and LOTR. The critics really missed the point on this one. Don't listen to em', don't be a critic, and just watch and enjoy the best damn movie out!
  33. BeciyW.
    Jul 10, 2006
    3
    Great effects, just too much of them. This very long half of a movie (the other half will be coming along soon) could have used a clearer plotline and been an hour shorter. I hope the island witch-doctor lady isn't back for the third movie, or that they give her subtitles; I couldn't understand a word she said in her island accent. Next time, more Depp, less schlep!
  34. JonnyBoy
    Jul 10, 2006
    10
    Awesome movie. Not as good as the first.
  35. PaulB.
    Jul 9, 2006
    3
    Long and boring. Not a funny as the first one and much darker.
  36. CalTran
    Aug 27, 2006
    0
    It was so bad i went to the bathroom twice, and the second time i didn't even need to. I just needed a break from the rediculousness. I didn't fall asleep but I wish I had. It would have made the time pass faster. Save your money. This ones a turkey.
  37. DuayneJ.
    Sep 6, 2006
    1
    Very boring and lame. Lots of effects, if you care about that.
  38. Jared
    Jul 11, 2006
    2
    To sum it up in a sentence: Contained within the movie is a great movie but its buried or more appropriately drowned in subplots, excessive action sequences, terrible pacing, and silly fish pirates.
  39. PhilipW.
    Jul 10, 2006
    0
    This was a pathetic attempt at Adventure for Adventure's sake. Anyone who likes this film is a vacuous imp. Do us a favor, film-makers, please spare us from the inevitable roasted feces that one should expect in the final installment.
  40. AngM.
    Jul 22, 2006
    3
    "Dead Man's Chest" was dumbed-down yet hard to follow. Hardly any of the plot elements made sense, the monstrous characters' (including Capt. Jack) accents were at times impossible to understand, and the lull in excitement in the film's middle hour was unbearable. I can't believe this mess was the best Verbinski could do with this unique franchise. I feel ripped off.
  41. ChadK.
    Aug 1, 2006
    0
    This movie was total suckage. Maybe I'm not the best judge since I didn't like the first movie all that much either. But this one was way worse. At least I saw the first movie on dvd. I'm mad at myself for wasting my hard earned money on this one at the theater.
  42. D.S.
    Aug 10, 2006
    3
    I know captain johnny depp is a confused man but did the movie have to be so directionless? expected a lot more especially since the first one was so great. will not go see the third in the theater!
  43. ShineP.
    Aug 16, 2006
    1
    There was very little to no story. It was like running around in a circle for two and a half hours. In the end, nothing is resolved. This is one long, pointless, protracted trailer for Pirates III, a movie, by the way, that I won't be seeing.
  44. JaredW.
    Aug 4, 2006
    3
    Very impressive special fx, but far too long as a result of the studio's wish to splash as many of said fx on the screen as possible, and extremely hard to follow since it introduces all sorts of plot points & blood lines that don't carry any weight to them; it's obvious the entanglements just serve to perpetuate the franchise. Not enough time spent with Johnny Depp, which Very impressive special fx, but far too long as a result of the studio's wish to splash as many of said fx on the screen as possible, and extremely hard to follow since it introduces all sorts of plot points & blood lines that don't carry any weight to them; it's obvious the entanglements just serve to perpetuate the franchise. Not enough time spent with Johnny Depp, which is why so many people like the first, and too much time rendering fx. A very uncomfortable 2.5 hours. Expand
  45. Simon
    Aug 6, 2006
    1
    Finally saw this thing. What a mistake! Johnny Depp was ok, but i liked him in Edward Scissorhands much more. The drunk captain routine was original and new in the first movie, but not in this one. Most of the actors' performances felt like going through the paces. How such a B-O-R-I-N-G movie has made so much money, i can't explain. Did I mention that it's terribly boring?
  46. MusicaliD.
    Aug 9, 2006
    2
    I agree with Simon. This movie is dreadfully boring. I loved part 1, but this has no story at all and it takes 2 and 1/2 hours to tell it. Special effects were top notch, but they didn't have any emotional weight at all. When I saw Superman, the first big action sequence had my heart pounding, I was biting my nails and I was glued to the screen, it was so intense. The action in this I agree with Simon. This movie is dreadfully boring. I loved part 1, but this has no story at all and it takes 2 and 1/2 hours to tell it. Special effects were top notch, but they didn't have any emotional weight at all. When I saw Superman, the first big action sequence had my heart pounding, I was biting my nails and I was glued to the screen, it was so intense. The action in this movie bored me, even though the f/x were better. What a terrible yawn this thing is. I don't recommend it for anybody. The only thing I totally enjoyed about the movie was the pirate with the glass eye (Gareth from The Office), he was hilarious, but hardly in it at all. Brutal movie. Yes, the f/x are really well done, but none of them affected me in any way at all. ZZzzzz. Expand
  47. Marnie
    Sep 16, 2006
    1
    By the time it was three quarters of the way through I was checking my watch every 5 minutes, hoping it would be over soon. Enormously boring. And I say that as someone who loved the first film. This one was a complete let down.
  48. Scarecrow
    Sep 5, 2006
    2
    It was overly directed presented and created. The story is nice but not presented well. The most interesting thing on the film is jack sparow and thats because of johny depp's good acting. I didnt cared about any other character than him. Very dissapointing sequel.
  49. James
    Apr 6, 2007
    2
    The biggest problem with this film is that its plot is horrible, falling apart at even the slightest scrutiny. So much of the movie wasted our time with pointless scenes and irrelevant plot lines. On the bright side the characterization was well done as was some of the cinematography. But still a film without a plot is extremely flawed. If you're one of the few who haven't seen The biggest problem with this film is that its plot is horrible, falling apart at even the slightest scrutiny. So much of the movie wasted our time with pointless scenes and irrelevant plot lines. On the bright side the characterization was well done as was some of the cinematography. But still a film without a plot is extremely flawed. If you're one of the few who haven't seen the film give it a wide birth. Expand
  50. Katherine
    Jun 21, 2007
    1
    I couldn't follow the story one bit because I couldn't hear a word the characters were saying. Also, way to long.
  51. Mike
    Dec 26, 2006
    3
    Amazing special effects, makeup, sets. But thats all it offers. I found the movie intresting for 30 mins and then it became very boring and unintresting. Even though the action was there. It was a bore.
  52. johnt
    Dec 5, 2006
    0
    It completely amazes me how Johnny Depp can go from an Oscar worthy performance into this ridiculously bad one. The story line made me lose complete interest in the franchise. I have no interest in any further sequels (which I'm sure will be multitudinous).
  53. Sean
    Jul 30, 2006
    2
    This was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. Even the action scenes I could care less about. Only thing good was Johnny Depp's performance.
  54. Rachel
    Jul 31, 2006
    0
    This is probably one of the most overrated films I've ever seen. And it shows that no film company ever lost money pleasing the general public. This film was horrid and I really regret seeing it. I usually love Johnny Depp but this film made his amazing acting talent become wasted!!!! And Keira Knightley if only she stuck to films like Bend It Like Beckham or Pride and Prejudice. This is probably one of the most overrated films I've ever seen. And it shows that no film company ever lost money pleasing the general public. This film was horrid and I really regret seeing it. I usually love Johnny Depp but this film made his amazing acting talent become wasted!!!! And Keira Knightley if only she stuck to films like Bend It Like Beckham or Pride and Prejudice. Definitely disappointing and I won't be seeing the last film thats for sure. Expand
  55. JeffreyH.
    Jul 7, 2006
    0
    Good gawd. i just gave yet another 2 hours of my life to that stinking franchise. after the juvenile(a macaw relieving itself on a man's shoulder got the biggest laugh of the night))humor, weak story line and simplistic, plodding score of the first, i thought i would give the second a chance to redeem the first. not to mention the sublime johnny depp. big mistake. save your money andGood gawd. i just gave yet another 2 hours of my life to that stinking franchise. after the juvenile(a macaw relieving itself on a man's shoulder got the biggest laugh of the night))humor, weak story line and simplistic, plodding score of the first, i thought i would give the second a chance to redeem the first. not to mention the sublime johnny depp. big mistake. save your money and the hours of lifetime you must commit to viewing this trash. my money and my time are gone, but you have a choice. make the right choice and see another movie like superman returns....yeah, dead man's chest is THAT bad. Expand
  56. JelmerJ.
    Aug 31, 2006
    1
    This movie is bad from start to finish. A waste of your time, money and brain.
  57. JamesW.
    Aug 3, 2006
    3
    Ninja was right. Shotgun-blasted plot. I enjoyed the first one, but this one is incoherent. Everybody's a pirate! I'm fairly lighthearted with movies, but Dead Man's Chest leaves such a foul tasting bile in my mouth that I have to say something. Don't waste your money on this, or else Hollywood will believe people like this tripe (may be too late for that). Wait for Ninja was right. Shotgun-blasted plot. I enjoyed the first one, but this one is incoherent. Everybody's a pirate! I'm fairly lighthearted with movies, but Dead Man's Chest leaves such a foul tasting bile in my mouth that I have to say something. Don't waste your money on this, or else Hollywood will believe people like this tripe (may be too late for that). Wait for rental and decide for yourself whether or not it's bad or horrible. Expand
  58. LuisG.
    Aug 4, 2006
    3
    Unlike those crazed fans who enjoyed the 1st film on the big screen ... i was reluctant to see pirates 1 but then came that dvd and well i saw the film i was somewhat entertained but fail to see what everyone else did .... funny but not hilarious , entertaining but not memorable ala jurassic park or jaws but then again how interesting can a private film be which is why i disliked pirates 2Unlike those crazed fans who enjoyed the 1st film on the big screen ... i was reluctant to see pirates 1 but then came that dvd and well i saw the film i was somewhat entertained but fail to see what everyone else did .... funny but not hilarious , entertaining but not memorable ala jurassic park or jaws but then again how interesting can a private film be which is why i disliked pirates 2 as well ...way to long , plot what plot thats called nonsense ... confused from the start and slighty entertained but still distratced by the whole experience.. i say if disneyhas so much mula to fork over for this trash they should invest in some actual things like offering scholarships or helping those in need my point being is stop waisting money of junk like this but then again i guess there is an audience so it says on a 135 million opening... Expand
  59. Mela
    Oct 13, 2007
    5
    Elizabeth does just fret me,she is so stupid and spoil and have nothing better to do than just look hard.
  60. NatM
    Feb 11, 2007
    1
    I personally feel that this movie completely sucked, after watching the first one I thought, maybe, just maybe this movie might be just as good. But no, sadly they used the lamest humour possible, they tried to be too funny, everyone just decided to start totally sucking at acting, and what's worse is that no one can see that. If anyone says that this was a good movie, I'm sorry I personally feel that this movie completely sucked, after watching the first one I thought, maybe, just maybe this movie might be just as good. But no, sadly they used the lamest humour possible, they tried to be too funny, everyone just decided to start totally sucking at acting, and what's worse is that no one can see that. If anyone says that this was a good movie, I'm sorry but they must be completely out of their minds. Expand
  61. MeghanR
    Dec 3, 2006
    1
    Frustratingly bad. What made the first movie so memorable was the campiness of Depp amongst the seriousness and nervousness of the other characters. What makes this movie so bad? The exploitation of campy acting from EACH character and of each scene. This movie goes way overboard. Would have worked better as a made for TV cartoon movie on the Disney channel. I hated it. It's the only Frustratingly bad. What made the first movie so memorable was the campiness of Depp amongst the seriousness and nervousness of the other characters. What makes this movie so bad? The exploitation of campy acting from EACH character and of each scene. This movie goes way overboard. Would have worked better as a made for TV cartoon movie on the Disney channel. I hated it. It's the only movie I almost seriously walked out on in my whole life. Terrible. Expand
  62. SamsonC.
    Aug 28, 2006
    0
    You would think this was one of the best movies of all time based on how much money it has made. What you get though is a crapfest. Take that to the bank.
  63. ChumT.
    Sep 13, 2006
    0
    Abysmal effort. Can only recommend to people I dislike. Like water-torture to sit through.
  64. BrianD.
    Sep 22, 2006
    0
    This movie made me want to impale my eyes with my soda straw.
  65. JonA.
    Jan 12, 2007
    5
    Many entertaining and imaginative action sequences, but the story feels aimless and eventually sinks the movie. Not as fun as I hoped it would be.
  66. DonL.
    Dec 11, 2007
    0
    Worst movie of the.....decade.
  67. Bendik
    Aug 23, 2007
    0
    Thanks for destroying a good actor! Johnny Depp was awesome, now I can't even look at him without getting sad. This movie is TERRIBLE!
  68. PatC.
    Aug 27, 2007
    3
    Some really cute quirky action, but overall the continuity was botched. Just because it utilized the construction of an overlong matinee serial doesn't mean it always had to refuse to make sense. But a swordfight on a rogue waterwheel, that's still something special.
  69. CarlM.
    Nov 19, 2006
    2
    Tedious and exhausting. Leaving you only with the promise of more. How draining.
  70. JesperMD
    Dec 11, 2006
    2
    The special effects are great - but the story and the acting is horrible. Really. What a waste of time.
  71. DysonL.
    Dec 15, 2006
    1
    This movie should be part of the dictionary's definition of the word "pointless". I have the impression that they were trying to milk every buck out of it before it even becomes a franchise. They were desperately expanding the story into a trilogy when they pathetically lack the material to do so. I hated so much this movie I will not pay to see the third installment no matter how This movie should be part of the dictionary's definition of the word "pointless". I have the impression that they were trying to milk every buck out of it before it even becomes a franchise. They were desperately expanding the story into a trilogy when they pathetically lack the material to do so. I hated so much this movie I will not pay to see the third installment no matter how good it may be. They fooled me once, but they will not fool me twice. Expand
  72. Nov 23, 2011
    0
    It proves how bad things can turn when the first film was so good and the sequel was far worst. The acting is poor, The story isnt interesting at all, and the entire film is simply boring.
  73. Mar 25, 2012
    5
    This installment is way to long and all the different plots make the film to complicated for itself. Yet the film still survives because of Jack and is marvelous performance.
  74. BitBurn
    Jul 10, 2006
    7
    It was aiight I guess, although not worth the huge media blitz thrown about it.
  75. larryK.
    Jul 19, 2006
    3
    Loved the first Pirates. What a wonderfully original and entertaining movie it was and how enjoyable Johnny Depp was in that film. Therefore, it deeply saddens me to say that the sequel was nothing but a bunch of boring nonsense! And most unfortunately, Johnny Depp wasn't able to recreate the magic that made Captain Jack Sparrow so lovable. I couldn't figure out if Cap'n Loved the first Pirates. What a wonderfully original and entertaining movie it was and how enjoyable Johnny Depp was in that film. Therefore, it deeply saddens me to say that the sequel was nothing but a bunch of boring nonsense! And most unfortunately, Johnny Depp wasn't able to recreate the magic that made Captain Jack Sparrow so lovable. I couldn't figure out if Cap'n Jack was supposed to be drugged, drunk, or gay. Depp apparently couldn't decide how to define Sparrow. But then I realized that he was just desperately trying to recapture the brilliance of his first performace Expand
  76. Jim
    Jul 20, 2006
    0
    "Surely, the public will think a sequel is just as good. All we have to do is make it look similar and fill it's extra long running time with pointless special effect battles! It worked for the Matrix films...right?" Seriously, I don't think they had a clue what made the first film a hit. Even Johnny Depp is merely a weak charicature of himself from the first film. Like Matrix "Surely, the public will think a sequel is just as good. All we have to do is make it look similar and fill it's extra long running time with pointless special effect battles! It worked for the Matrix films...right?" Seriously, I don't think they had a clue what made the first film a hit. Even Johnny Depp is merely a weak charicature of himself from the first film. Like Matrix Reloaded, if there's no real substance behind the action, I don't give a damn about the action itself. If it's 5 minutes of action or 2.5 hours, the fact is I've seen computer effects before! It's just not thrilling watching action for actions sake, action is only thrilling if it has a purpose (ie, like in the first film). What in the world happened to all that other stuff that PotC got so right? A plot? Humor that isn't predictable and forced? Caring about the characters? You need the audience to want a certain outcome! All we're left with is a wait for the ending (and what a loooonng wait it is), which only blatantly reveals the justification for turning this into a trilogy: if you have a hit, milk it! Expand
  77. MichaelP.
    Jul 6, 2006
    10
    I LOVED THIS MOVIE! Better than the first in most way, I cannot wait for the final installment!
  78. StelP.
    Jul 6, 2006
    3
    I wanted to love this sequel SO BADLY, but unfortunately, it's a ponderous 2-1/2 hours that left me feeling flat and uninspired at the end. Weak screenplay, inconsistent cinematography, very little emotional attachment to any of the main characters, and most importantly, not enough of the witty and sly side of Jack Sparrow. Did I mention that it's WAY too long?! After seeing the I wanted to love this sequel SO BADLY, but unfortunately, it's a ponderous 2-1/2 hours that left me feeling flat and uninspired at the end. Weak screenplay, inconsistent cinematography, very little emotional attachment to any of the main characters, and most importantly, not enough of the witty and sly side of Jack Sparrow. Did I mention that it's WAY too long?! After seeing the first one multiple times in theaters, I was waiting eagerly for that one on DVD. I have no such desire this time around, I'm sorry to say. Once was enough. Expand
  79. PujaN.
    Jul 7, 2006
    8
    I don't know why people are going all crazy trying to judge and ridicule an a mere action flick. It keeps your eyes relatively pleased, yet storyline is somewhat predictable..but who can't fall in love with Johnny Dep's silly character?
  80. Nick
    Jul 7, 2006
    10
    Just came back from seeing it, and I enjoyed this a lot more than the first one. :)
  81. BryceE.
    Jul 8, 2006
    10
    Davy Jones is awesome! Jack Sparrow seemed more goofy than cool, and the movie takes its time to get going, but the scenes featuring Davy Jones are just rad. Best "summer" movie by far. people taking this movie too seriously just need to chill.
  82. RaoG.
    Jul 8, 2006
    4
    The first movie was a revivial of the swashbuckling genre, bringing the right combination of action, comedy, drama, and characters making it a masterpiece. This movie need more time in development before it's release. The action sequences are silly and poorly shot, with over the top action in which characters are never in any real peral. The reliance of computer animated action The first movie was a revivial of the swashbuckling genre, bringing the right combination of action, comedy, drama, and characters making it a masterpiece. This movie need more time in development before it's release. The action sequences are silly and poorly shot, with over the top action in which characters are never in any real peral. The reliance of computer animated action sequences watered down the movie more dramatic moments. The entire movie was a simple set-up for the next, while at the same time doing absolutely no justice to the fantastic cast of characters established by the brilliant cast. The script lacked the magic of the original with dialogue that seemed to make a pale attempt to copy the original. The positives are the new charcters, who seem to all overshadow the main cast, the revival of the supporting cast of pirates, and the final shot of the movie. Expand
  83. MarkA.
    Jul 9, 2006
    10
    This movie was so GOOD! Ive seen it twice and cant wait for a third! Like others have said, I dont know what movie the critics saw because it wasnt this one...it might be too long for some people but I didnt feel it, its the most fun you'll have at the theater this summer...and the last minute will blow you away!
  84. TyeN.
    Jul 9, 2006
    6
    I'm so very disappointed by this film. Before I went to see it, I re-watched the original. Even though I've seen the first 'Pirates' many times, I still laughed and found some of the set pieces exciting. However, "Dead Man's Chest" tries to do too much while not doing enough at the same time. It sounds confusing, but here's what I mean: Too much pointless I'm so very disappointed by this film. Before I went to see it, I re-watched the original. Even though I've seen the first 'Pirates' many times, I still laughed and found some of the set pieces exciting. However, "Dead Man's Chest" tries to do too much while not doing enough at the same time. It sounds confusing, but here's what I mean: Too much pointless action sequences (the ones that really bothered me were the many Kraken ones), too many split plot lines, too long of a running time. And there wasn't enough plot or character development (especially for Bootstrap Bill, Will Turner, Elizabeth Swan, Davy Jones, and the new character Lord Bennington), not enough laughs (it tries, but many jokes come off as lame), not enough fun (much of the film actually feels like work to watch.) Although there are enjoyable moments (the cannibal island, just looking at the awesome CG, the big fight near the end of the film for the chest) there just weren't enough. I wanted to love, but I only ended up kinda liking it. Expand
  85. RyanJ.
    Aug 23, 2006
    4
    in most of my reviews i have praised movies but this is one of the worst, i was so dissapointed with this movie after the brilliance of the first movie, i must say if johnny depp wasn't in the movie the movie would be pathetic. He was the most lively part of the film and as usual was comical and interresting, the part that let the film down the most was the story line, it had no in most of my reviews i have praised movies but this is one of the worst, i was so dissapointed with this movie after the brilliance of the first movie, i must say if johnny depp wasn't in the movie the movie would be pathetic. He was the most lively part of the film and as usual was comical and interresting, the part that let the film down the most was the story line, it had no direction and never really showed any chance of ending or evn really hitting that 'wow' factor like the first film, overall dissapointing and hopefully if they make the first it will be more like the first film and nothing like this film! Expand
  86. JPPaxton
    Nov 6, 2006
    5
    Usually sequels don't surpass the greatness and originality their predecessors establish. 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest' doesn't fail to follow suit. From the trailers it appears to be an exciting thrill ride loaded with tons of merriment. But in reality its a two hour and thirty five minute foreseeable film filled with humdrum antics and sleep Usually sequels don't surpass the greatness and originality their predecessors establish. 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest' doesn't fail to follow suit. From the trailers it appears to be an exciting thrill ride loaded with tons of merriment. But in reality its a two hour and thirty five minute foreseeable film filled with humdrum antics and sleep inducing banter. The first 'Pirates' was absolutely one hundred percent far more delightful. Before it, a character with humor and essence such as Captain Jack Sparrow hadn't been seen in cinema. A once amusing and engaging Jack is now just plain annoying. Here in 'Dead Man's Chest' his foolhardy, joker demeanor only halts the story as it attempts to progress. In addition, average acting and direction are dishearteningly unveiled. The only pleasing aspects presented are the outstanding visuals and devilishly good villain Davy Jones. I'm afraid neither of these ingredients are able to save this mess of a film from sinking though. The bottom line is, 'Dead Man's Chest' is nothing more than a film built on hype and in the end has no real substance. "I think the second movie is strong and clever and has a lot going on", said director Gore Verbinski in an October interview last year when speaking about 'Pirates'. Apparently this version of the film didn't make the final cut. Even so, 'Dead Man's Chest' will without a doubt continue to dominate at the movies and make other summer releases walk the plank at the box office. I don't think even Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx's big screen adaptation of 'Miami Vice' will be able to decimate it when released this Friday. I guess I can give Verbinski some credit though. It's pretty amazing to see a film with video-game logic that's created from zip do so tremendous. Expand
  87. JuniorL.
    Jul 10, 2006
    4
    A complete waste of Johnny Depp's talent and he's the only reason to see, although Orlando Bloom has potential. When your characters have to explain what is going on in the movie, you know you're in over your head. They could have easily deleted about a 1/3 of this movie and it would have been barely entertaining. I was a big fan of the first Pirate's and the first to A complete waste of Johnny Depp's talent and he's the only reason to see, although Orlando Bloom has potential. When your characters have to explain what is going on in the movie, you know you're in over your head. They could have easily deleted about a 1/3 of this movie and it would have been barely entertaining. I was a big fan of the first Pirate's and the first to see this on Friday and I will definitely tell everyone I know, not to waste their time and $10. They can rent it and do laundry while they have it on in the background and they won't miss much. At least the popcorn was good. Expand
  88. Fantasy
    Jul 11, 2006
    8
    Pirates 2 was a bit long and dragged at some points but still was great fun. The trilogy is no more as by breaking all the records they have changed it into two more flicks. Keith Richards has already signed on to play Captain Jack's father which should be a hoot. But for now this Pirates is very long and some of it should have been left on the cutting room floor. But for those of Pirates 2 was a bit long and dragged at some points but still was great fun. The trilogy is no more as by breaking all the records they have changed it into two more flicks. Keith Richards has already signed on to play Captain Jack's father which should be a hoot. But for now this Pirates is very long and some of it should have been left on the cutting room floor. But for those of you who hated it, don't take this movie too seriously, because it is nothing more than an amusement ride. Just bring the popcorn, sit back and enjoy. Johnny Depp steals the show. Expand
  89. HayleyC.
    Jul 11, 2006
    9
    Phillip W.. if you didnt like it.. fine, say what it is you didnt like and leave it at that no need to diss the movie, or those that like(ed) it, it was very much a set up for the last in the trilogy and more script would have been nice. but it was FUN.. stop expecting this movie to have been all deep and meaningful...it was supposed to be exciting, fun, eye candy.. and it WAS. sheesh Phillip W.. if you didnt like it.. fine, say what it is you didnt like and leave it at that no need to diss the movie, or those that like(ed) it, it was very much a set up for the last in the trilogy and more script would have been nice. but it was FUN.. stop expecting this movie to have been all deep and meaningful...it was supposed to be exciting, fun, eye candy.. and it WAS. sheesh enjoy yourself for a change - cant wait for the 3rd. Expand
  90. GrantB.
    Jul 10, 2006
    4
    Confusing/Slow Moving/Orlando Bloom can't act.
  91. Joan
    Jul 10, 2006
    10
    How much more bang for your buck could you ask for? In 2+ hours you get some action, some comedy, lots of adventure, and 3 very beautiful people playing pirates. It's not Shakespeare, but it's not Battlefield Earth either.
  92. PurseyH.
    Jul 11, 2006
    9
    I thought it was very entertaining, as you can see by the customer reviews alot of people agree. The point is its a movie that is definitely worth seeing and who knows, if you can put all these bad reviews out of your head and get your own oppinion on it, mabey you'll really like it. I did.
  93. TanyaJ.
    Jul 12, 2006
    2
    Frankly, while i didnt really expect this movie to surpass the first one, it still appalled me. out of all the sequels ive seen, this has got to be one of the worst. cheap, overused puns, a lame storyline and no originality whatsoever made this movie completely unwatchable. this film should come with a "May cause cerebral bleeding!" warning.
  94. TonyL.
    Jul 12, 2006
    3
    Reasons why this film didn't work for me. 1) I loved Johnny Depp's take on Capt. Sparrow in the first film. Now it is old hat. 2) Kiera K. was a fresh new face in the first film, but she really didn't add anything new to the role this time. 3) Norrington worked much better as a starchy British officer. 4) Directors must really figure out when to say when there is enough Reasons why this film didn't work for me. 1) I loved Johnny Depp's take on Capt. Sparrow in the first film. Now it is old hat. 2) Kiera K. was a fresh new face in the first film, but she really didn't add anything new to the role this time. 3) Norrington worked much better as a starchy British officer. 4) Directors must really figure out when to say when there is enough special effects. 5) You really cared about Capt. Barbosa and the rest of the crew in the last film, not so much in this one 6) Can't anybody edit anymore? This type of movie doesn't need to be over 2+30 hours! Expand
  95. LorileeO.
    Jul 10, 2006
    9
    I don't know why so many are harping on the 2 1/2 hour run time - this seems to be in line with other blockbusters (Superman Returns, King Kong, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Titanic etc.) - I didn't notice all the complaining then! The movie provides exactly what viewers want from this sort of story - fascinating venues, high intensity special effects, loads of action, solid I don't know why so many are harping on the 2 1/2 hour run time - this seems to be in line with other blockbusters (Superman Returns, King Kong, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Titanic etc.) - I didn't notice all the complaining then! The movie provides exactly what viewers want from this sort of story - fascinating venues, high intensity special effects, loads of action, solid humor, romance, and a touch of horror. What more could you want of a action/adveture pirate movie? Johnny Depp is spectacular, as are the witch lady, Kiera and Orlando. The wait to see #3 is going to kill me! No, it didn't have any serious, life changing subplots or morals, but it was not meant to. All the key players stayed true to their character. The effects were amazing. For me, the 2 1/2 hours whizzed by. Expand
  96. DanF.
    Jul 12, 2006
    9
    [***SPOILER***] I be a pirate, and I think this film be ye accurate representation of the day to day life of ye average deckhand. Therefore, a 9 I give this documentary about the life, and apparent greusome death, of my captain, jack sparrow.
  97. CraigAaen-S.
    Jul 12, 2006
    6
    Overly complex and 'epic'. WAAYYY too scary for a PG-13. Several families had to leave the cinema I was in after kids were terrified by birds pecking out eyeballs, faceless corpses and all other manner of grotesque images. Made ME feel slightly sick.
  98. JeffW.
    Jul 10, 2006
    9
    Whoaaa! Give me a break p-l-e-a-s-e-! Okay, it's not as good as the first (10) but they never are. It is a close second however and definitely does not deserve anything less than that. I watched it last night, came home and seen that this movie broke the record three-day take for any movie ever. The people have voiced their opinion. The critics and their ilk need to lighten up! :)
  99. JohnP.
    Jul 13, 2006
    2
    Sattles viewers to their seats with big budget action yet seemingly fails to satisfy in any way.
  100. GaryS.
    Jul 13, 2006
    1
    Interesting special effects, but we walked out after an hour. Very confusing plot or no plot.
Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 37
  2. Negative: 4 out of 37
  1. 75
    Lively is an odd word for something called Dead Man's Chest, but lively it is. You won't find hotter action, wilder thrills or loopier laughs this summer.
  2. Reviewed by: Dan Jolin
    60
    Too long, and too wrapped up in its various plot contrivances to notice it’s veering off course. But Jack just about pulls the wheel back, aided by Verbinski’s flair for cartoonish comedy action.
  3. Depp is the comic gel that holds the whole enterprise together. The performance is a total delight that somehow combines Bugs Bunny, Peter Pan and Charlie Chaplin.