Descnet for a sequel, but definitely not as good as the original.

Rating: 5/10 (9 July 2006)

For a sequel, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is not bad. However, it definitely does not live up to the original.
1. Captain Jack was way more fun, witty, and charming in the first movie. Somehow, the spirit of Jack seems to have left for the second one. Johnny's heart just doesn't feel like it's in the role.
2. Captain Jack was a much nicer guy in the first movie. I mean, he was somewhat of a double-agent, but in this movie he almost feels malicious. Also, any of his deep moments from the first movie, like when he talked to Elizabeth on the island about what a ship is, do not reappear in the sequel.
3. The music wasn't as good the second time around. I mean, it was okay, but it's just that the music in Black Pearl was so astonishing, that DMC's music paled by comparison. DMC used some of the songs from the original during the action parts of the movie, but other than that, there really was very little music of any kind. In the first movie, the music was used really well to set the mood, but not in the sequel.
4. The sword fights were much better in Black Pearl than in DMC. In Black Pearl they were way more real; they were even in time with the music! But in DMC the sword fights (correction, sword fight) just feel ridiculous and silly.
5. A movie needs a coherent plot! Black Pearl definitely had one. DMC definitely did not. I mean, sure, there were a lot of various interesting subplots, but it was hard to see how they all worked together to form a single story.
6. Barbossa was a much better villain than Davey Jones. Some people would disagree with me on this, but I like a villain who we can try to understand, rather than a over-sized shrimp who is nothing more than a meanie. With Barbossa, while he was mean, he was doing it because he had the simple desire to be able to feel and taste again. Let's not forget that Geoffery Rush is an amazing actor; he was definitely missed in the second film (except for his two seconds at the end). I also thought it was more realistic and historically accurate to have Pirates fighting Pirates rather than Pirates fighting creepy sea creatures. Plus, I hate CGI and seafood.
7. The second film was much darker than the first one. If you go for that, then great, but I personally enjoyed the fun, sunny, Disney feel to the first movie. It put a nice smile on your face. DMC doesn't do that. There's a heavy, grey haze over the whole film in actual colour but also just in the general feel of it.
8. Black Pearl had a way more epic feel to it that DMC. I don't quite know why, but it's probably due to a combination of many of the above factors.
9. Black Pearl was just an all-around well-made film. DMC is not.
10. One other thing to mention is that DMC kinda felt like a filler movie. All it did was start a whole bunch of unfinished subplot lines which will be completed in At World's End. Black Pearl was an amazing movie, At World's End looks like it'll be an amazing movie (what with all of the subplots it'll have to finish up and with the return of Barbossa / Geoffrey Rush), but that the only purpose that DMC served was to bridge the two movies and make it all into a trilogy. It's hard to say until I've seen At World's End, but it may have worked better to compress parts 2 and 3 into one sequel.
Now that I'm done venting, I'll say that DMC was pretty descent. A lot of sequels nowadays are complete flops, so, in comparison, DMC was alright. It had a lot to live up to. I mean, Black Pearl was such a success and people would thus be expecting a lot from it's sequel, and, well, it didn't really deliver, but it kinda did. All I'm saying is that, standing on it's own, it would be a pretty crappy movie, but as a sequel to an astonishing movie, it did a fair job.
My final verdict is that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is worth the eight dollars and 2 1/2 hours of your life to see it. Just don't expect it to equal it predecessor.