Reviews

I loathed the second Pirates of the Caribbean, so needless to say I was not expecting much out of the third installment. But even with my expectations so low, they were not met.

It was completely evident that the story was half-heartedly tacked on to a film that was really not meant to have sequels. The loose ends and unnecessary sub-plots served only as nails to squeeze tight this sea-bound coffin.

::SPOILERS BELOW::

I have a few questions for the filmmakers:

1. If you made such a big deal out of Calypso, why is it that she only served to create an easily escapable whirlpool? At first it seemed that everyone was making a mess out of their pants when they heard about Calypso, and it didn't make sense to have her appear, but then only to disappear without any consequence.

2. Why were we supposed to care about the hangings and the song in the beginning? The beginning might have made sense if we saw more about how the reign of the Trading Company affected "normal" people's lives, but all we saw was a bunch of random people dying, apparently for no reason. Yes, we knew the Trading Company was evil. What was intended at the beginning was trite and unnecessary. Thank you Gore Verbinsky--you just downplayed the imagery of mass murder. Which leads me to my last question.

3. Seriously? This is Pirates of the Caribbean, not Schindler's List. You don't care THAT much about the characters, and the reason the first film worked so well is that it didn't take itself so seriously. The character development of Elizabeth Swann was shoddy, the lack of resolution of plot was frustrating, and so many other elements of the film were something you might expect from an academy award winning drama, not something manufactured in the Hollywood mill.

I really enjoyed the original, and I'll continue to watch it from time to time, enjoying Johnny Depp's performance each time. There were a few Depp moments in this last one that made the Matinée price of my ticket stub almost worth what I paid.

Other than that, this film is pure crap.

I was lucky enough to catch an advance screening of the Matrix Revolutions in D.C., and I would say that the type of film the Matrix started out to be really didn't carry through to the end; though, I would also say that this isn't such a bad thing. I thought the cinematography near the end was superb, I was sincerely caught up in the tension, and I suppose the only thing that bothered me was that I wanted the storyline to go in a different direction.

**Warning: Possible spoilers ahead**

I guess with that type of story, with trying to explain some semblance of existence, there are only so many results you can end on. You can rework old ideas in new ways, and no pun intended here, but Jesus, isn't there some other way of supporting human existence than martyrdom?

To be fair, it was a great blending of the West and the East in terms of religious ideas. Maybe I was looking for some sort of answer, some sort of transcendent meaning in the film the Waichowsky brothers could have never presented in an entertaining way. Maybe I just liked the open endedness of the first.

Overall, though, I would say that I was more impressed with the fight scenes, the beautiful choreography of Agent Smith versus Neo, the epic presentation of two god-like characters, and the wonderfully constructed ride of the Battle of Zion than I was with any sort of hint at intellectual exploration of reality. Whereas the first seemed to have quite a bit of it, the second lacked in it, the third had nearly none of it.

If you liked intellectual side of the Matrix, don't go into the third installment looking for more. If you liked the ride, you might have some fun.