There's a slew of classic films that haven't made it into the IMDb top 250, but at the time of writing, "Pirates of the Caribbean" has achieved a comfortable place among the best films of all time - presumably because Kiera Knightley is hot and Johnny Depp is funny, right? I mean, I can't think of any sensible reason.

Truth is, this is a fun little potboiler that is way too long (people complain that Harry Potter is padded?) and completely lacking in anything resembling drama. The script has the same cringe-inducing qualities as the average Hollywood blockbuster, including the Mandatory Irksome Catchphrase that is continuously spouted by characters even though it wasn't funny the first time ("they're not rules...more like guidelines!"). If Depp didn't spend the whole movie wobbling and acted brain-fried, viewers would all be bored to tears.

I must confess that the sets and costumes are impressive, and I enjoyed seeing the spectral pirates marching to attack the ship. I can see liking this movie - I can even see loving it - but a classic? I think everybody gave "Pirates of the Caribbean" an "8" because it's a crowd-pleaser, and somehow that's enabled it to rise way above where it ought to be in the rankings, which is definitely somewhere below "The French Connection."

P.S. Forgive a quick aside about Roger Ebert. I like his reviews of classic movies, but he seems out-of-touch when commenting on recent ones; he thinks "Van Helsing" is better than "Spider-Man," for example, and he labels the third Harry Potter the weakest in the series. Most bizarrely of all, he argues that Kiera Knightley is not attractive in this movie. Does anyone, in the entire Universe, agree with that assessment?