As bad as the first film was good.

Rating: 1/10 (8 July 2006)

Sums it up really. The first film was completely original & a refreshing change and while the sequel - indeed any sequel - by definition can never have that trait, they can at least retain some of the values of the first film.
This was appalling drivel & I'm staggered so many have rated it as high as the first. What were you watching? Sparrow's character was one of the greatest in movie history. It was nothing here, he lacked any of the charisma or lines of the original and to paraphrase another critic here the "seem like an honest man, tell lies, and really be honest at heart" characterisation was flogged to death. Knightley seemed far too cocky in her role and Bloom was given a lot of screen time for a plot which never bordered on interesting. Although the latter could've been avoided had they merely removed the entire 45 minute tribesman / island scene near the beginning which served absolutely no point to the rest of the film whatsoever.
Whereas in the original the plot was simple & yet brilliantly effective this was a complete mess & merely a selection of incoherent & unnecessary scenes lumped together and seemingly decided on 1) how much they cost to film & 2) how loud they were as opposed to whether they added anything to the film at all.
The target audience seemed completely different to the first. The original seemed to be written towards intelligent adults but with consideration to younger viewers. I mean no offence here, but I got the feeling 90% of this was aimed at the average three year old, bar the concept of Davy Jones which would be asking a bit for a 12 or 13 year old to take on board first time. If you'd gone more than a couple of minutes without a good line or scene (which it frequently did) throw in a few "man gets hit on head with rock" or "man trips over" gags & all will be forgotten. Granted in my cinema they got a few laughs, but they sounded like children's laughs in comparison to the original.
I'd accumulated about 250 questions & points I was unsure of within the first half hour and while some were answered later on (too late usually - as you'd got past caring) the key points were usually glossed over so quickly, presumably so the plot holes & plot jumps were not questioned. Much of this was brought about by too many characters in the film as a whole, particularly early on.
A good sequel IMO, is one where you imagine the original had never existed and this was it instead. Regardless of whether the plot is better or worse does it still offer the originality & core values of the first film. This never came close. The plot was dull & sacrificed for noise & effects & the characters had nothing likable about them. The major ones never evolved at all, the minor ones just recycled the same gags & lines from the first film, which were great then but not again.
I still await the 3rd film with anticipation. There's every chance it could be another classic like the original, especially if they take on board the faults of this one. Lets hope Pirates of the Caribbean follows in the mould of Die Hard with two classic films at ever end, with a pointless one sandwiched between them.
Sorry but 1/10 - no redeeming qualities at all.