Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 3/5 review by Chris (Joe)

Aaaarrrggggg! That is my pirate voice.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End



-In theaters now-

IMDB Synopsis:
Captain Barbossa, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann must sail off the edge of the map, navigate treachery and betrayal, and make their final alliances for one last decisive battle.


Chris’s review:
One last hurrah? Maybe, maybe not. This movie is far from an end to the Pirates trilogy. It does attempt to conclude the story lines begun in the last Pirates movie, but leaves plenty of room for future installments. The real question is: do you care?

This isn’t a BAD movie really. It isn’t a GOOD movie though either. I’d say it is worth seeing, but probably not for the cost of a ticket at the theater. Plus, it is quite long, and at times it feels VERY long. It may also be the worst of the three.

I will say that, once again, this is a great looking movie. Gore Verbinski brings us another clean, intriguing looking film. The effects and cinematography is as captivating as the predecessors. Where this installment falls short, as was a problem with the second movie, is the scope. Somewhere between the success of the first movie, after the uncertainty surrounding how it would do once released, and the making of these two sequels, the minds behind the Pirates series forgot what they were originally doing. What were they doing you ask? They were making a movie based on a ride at freaking Disneyland! If you ever take THAT concept too seriously you have drastically overshot your bounds. The second movie, and maybe more-so the third, does EXACTLY that. The draw for the first movie was the fact that it was fun, self contained, and relatively light. After their blistering success at the box office they got big heads and tried to write a pirate version of Lord of the Rings, or some other epic series. Far too much is going on in this Pirates for you to ever settle on a story line long enough to care about it. Not to mention the questions you will have when you walk out of the theater. So many mythologies are introduced but never explored. I think the hope is that they will keep things moving so fast that you will never stop to wonder on any one point. The problem is, when you walk out of the theater you DO start wondering and you realize that some things make little to no sense.

All of that said, these movies are still entertaining and enjoyable. I think of them as a guilty pleasure. We all like to sit back and get lost in a swashbuckling world of fantasy. I only wish the fantasy world laid out in front of me was a bit more developed. But hey, Johnny Depp is in it…so it rocks right?


Chris’s recommendations:
See this movie if…
-You’ve seen the other two and are excited about the new one…I don’t want to ruin your fun, so just go see it.
-Orlando Bloom makes your pants wet…or hard. Whichever. I’m not going to question your preferences man.
-You need a few hours away from the harsh realities of the real world. This movie serves pretty well for escapists.

Don’t see this movie if…
-You expect your movies to make sense.
-You are afraid of French pirates…because there is totally a French pirate in this movie.
-You didn’t like the other movies. This one is pretty much those movies, but worse.

2nd Opinion: 28 Weeks Later 3/5 reviewed by Mike

Here's a new feature for the crew! 2nd opinion--when the crew disagrees with itself. I must respectfully disagree with Corey about "28 Weeks Later." Now, hear me--I'm going to say some bad things about this film, mostly to counterpoint Corey's review, but this is by NO means a BAD movie. I didn't feel like I wasted my time or money, but this movie doesn't belong anywhere near a 5.

The thing about this movie is that it's executed very well, but it's script is really not that good. The directing is great, the acting is above average, all the craft elements are pretty good, especially the music. The music is the best thing about this movie. Even during the chaotic action scenes, the music isn't death metal, like you'd expect, it's rock that is simultaneous scary, haunting, but mostly sad. In fact, during some of the deaths, instead of feeling scared or horrified, I actually found myself moved to sadness at the tragedy of it all, and thats due entirely to the brilliant music. Special effects are great too. Firebombing scenes look great, costumes are great, etc.

The problem is, although executed well, the story was just very, very lacking. It's typical sequel fare, and relies VERY heavily on horror movie cliches, and ends up being very gimmicky. What I loved about "28 Days" was that it took zombies and put them in a realistic setting--what would ACTUALLY happen? This movie puts them back into the land of stupid coincidences, and horror movie stereotypes. The amount of "suspension of disbelief" that this movie asks you to make is far, far more than I am willing to. If you pilot a helicopter like that, you WOULD crash. You don't just walk around a corner and happen to bump into the people you're looking for after you've been separated in a riot. Army soldiers would never DO that. An Apache Helicopter does NOT have enormous trouble taking out a car. There's no way that they can keep running into the same zombie over and over again all over the city. You can't spend 20 minutes of a film building up the idea of crazy careful military presence, and then have it not notice or respond at all to something like this. And this is the tip of the iceberg...

Overall, the story relies solely on freak coincidence and Divine intervention, rather than a sense of realism that made the first one so notable (and better). The script asks you to make so many ridiculous logic leaps that I just gave up after a while. Yes, there's usually suspension of disbelief in action movies, but this was too much, especially when the realism of the original film is the point, and the main draw for me. The nail in the coffin for me was the ultimate gimmick at the end. After the movie rightfully ends, there's a little "tag" put on. I found myself thinking "oh no, if I see what I think I'm about to see..." and then I did. It was cheesy, a lame gimmick, and just made me roll my eyes. Coupled with the story structure problems and severe lack of character development, and I really can't give this more than a 3. These problems don't make it a bad movie, they just keep it from being a GREAT movie.

Is it worth seeing? Probably. Especially if you like zombies, and action/horror thrillers. It's scary, cool, and thrilling (the opening sequence is quite brilliant, actually). But there's nothing here you haven't seen before, and seen better in other movies, especially the original 28 Days Later.

As a footnote: this movie reminds me yet again: the BEST zombie story EVER is being done currently as a serially-released monthly comic book entitled "Walking Dead," by Robert Kirkman. It comes out every month, but you'll probably want to start at the beginning. Run to your local comic shop and pick up the first collection.

In Case You Missed It: Pan's Labyrinth 5/5 reviewed by Mike

It may not seem like it lately, but I really DON'T give 5's to movies off the bat often. Really, hardly ever. But I think this film is really a great, phenomenal piece of work. I honestly cannot find a single flaw in it. And I tried. This thing won 3 Oscars and deserved every one. And now, you can own it on a shiny disc.

Written and Directed by Guillermo del Toro (yeah he did Hellboy, but if you didn't like that, don't let it color your opinion of him, it was a great adaptation), Pan's Labyrinth follows the story of a young girl named Ophelia who lives with her mom and evil Nazi step-dad in Spain during the second world war. Ophelia is in love with fairy tales, and before long finds herself in one--while exploring the grounds of her step-dads house, a mystical Faun gives her three mystical tasks she must perform to prove that she is indeed the princess of a mystical kingdom. Whether or not this fantasy is real, or an imagined coping mechanism for the horrors of the real world is left for you to decide (and no way will I spoil this ending for you). Either way, this movie is in one sense, a dark fantasy fairy-tale for grown-ups, and simultaneously a gritty, traumatic war film. It is also the saddest movie I have ever seen, I think.

The acting is brilliant. The all spanish cast (did I mention this is a Spanish language film?) does a magnificent job. The script is perfect. Yes, the story is predictable (the first frame tells you what's going to happen) in a way, mostly because it adheres to genre, but that's not the point. This movie isn't trying to trick you, or surprise you with "twists," it's trying to show you the heart-wrenching story of a young girl dealing with the horrors of war. Character development is great as well. I instantly adhered to Ofelia and Mercedes, who are trying to make the best of a truly horrid situation. The parallels drawn between the two characters are powerful and emotional. This movie will make you cry--and it SHOULD. We need to cry at this story, and stories like it, I think.

The directing is jaw-droppingly magnificent and perfectly appropriate for this sort of story. Transitions are wonderfully and beautifully handled, and there's some really nice juxtapositions, but the camera never feels like it's in the way, Toro is never showing off, he's just doing what's perfect for the story, and it works great. The soundtrack is also perfect, never in the way, but always enhancing. There's a lullaby theme that gets played with throughout the film that is absolutely perfect.

This is a powerful piece that, like certain films in my favorites list, I can hold up as incredible pieces of film, but I don't want to re-watch often. Although I will be in the mood for this film more often than, say, Children of Men, this still isn't a Saturday afternoon relax movie. Pan's Labyrinth is for when you're upset, and just need to escape, experience something powerful and magical, and just cry. This just came out on DVD recently, so go pick it up and weep your eyes out. Few movies will touch my heart like this one does.

28 Weeks Later 5/5 reviewed by Corey

The bad taste Spidey left in my mouth is gone.

I'll start off saying that whatever metaphor you find here about the war in Iraq is ludicrous. I swear, if the critics wanted to find a war metaphor/allegory in freakin' Bambi, they could. It's simply not there, and if you believe it to be, you've either read too much of your own politics into the film, or you don't know what a metaphor is.

If you are a member of the second group, which probably constitutes a rough 3.3 (repeating, of course) percent of our readers, here's an example of a metaphor: 28 Weeks Later is money in the bank.

I've been excited to see this since I found out it was being made. I hold 28 Days Later to be one of the best indie success stories of the last decade, not to mention one of the finest thriller/horror films created. It is brilliant in every way, shape and form. It had brilliant acting. It had a perfect soundtrack. The zombies made me soil my armor I was so scared. In fact, the only real thing that held it back (I gave it a 5/5, mind you) at all was the one thing that couldn't be avoided: lack of a big budget.

28 Weeks Later has a much bigger budget (after a ton of looking around, I still can't find the exact number) and, luckily, is just as good...no, better than the first. And it's up there with The Descent and The Abandoned in scare-factor.

I'm not gonna talk much about the plot. See the first movie before this one. There are a couple of silly coincidences in both movies. You'll find yourself saying "Don't do that" or "That's a bad idea" to the screen, but these things have to happen in a movie built on virus-infected monsters murdering people. Suspend your belief for a minute, and remember that it's not Black Hawk Down and it's not meant to be.

Weeks kicks off with a opener not unlike the first: it's fast, it's brutal, and it'll leave you wide-eyed. Immediately, two things are noticeable: there is a significant increase in the amount of gore in the film, and it is simply much, much scarier. These two differences hold true throughout the rest of the film. The acting is exceptionally good, especially given the genre.

The score (some of which you'll recognize from the awesome ending to Days) is brilliant again, and is so noteworthy because of the company it has in the horror genre. Too often, zombie flicks are ruined by the choice made to play Slipknot or Rob Zombie in the background. It's beautiful rock that adds to the experience rather than detracts from it. Jeremy Renner (North Country, SWAT) doesn't bring a huge amount of character to the table, but the focus of the film is not on his relationship anyways, so it's understandable. He's not half as charming as Cillian Murphy is, but there are also very few breaks in the action here, which was not the case in the first film.

Now the special effects are in a whole different ballpark here. The helicopter scene (which would have been pervasive had things like it occurred throughout the rest of the movie) is awesome, if not particularly innovative. The firebombing scenes have to be seen on the big screen. In this aspect more than any other, it seems like Fresnadillo had the chance to make the movie Danny Boyle wanted to. Limbs fly off zombies, blood spatters everywhere. It's like that Dawn of the Dead remake. Except with better acting and story and zombies and special effects and music and...

Ok, so it's not like that Dawn of the Dead remake.

Anyways, do yourself a favor and go see this with a couple buddies. It's not a date movie (I'm not kidding about the gore, it's significantly more shocking than the first), but its got some very memorable scenes, some truly beautiful directing (beautiful in the ugly way, very much like Children of Men) and is better than the first in every way. 5/5? You're a fool not to see it if you at all enjoy thrillers, horror movies, or films like Children of Men that appeal both to the aesthetic and basic aspects of humanity. It will likely be one of my favorites this year. Oh, and since you asked, yes...

There is a freakin' mass chaos zombie-killing sniper sequence that might make you join the military. Oh, and it's not really a zombie movie. It's all a big metaphor for the war in Iraq. Or so I'm told...

Spider-Man 3: 2/5 reviewed by Corey

Read Mike's review below.

I warn you with this exclaimer: I have given Spider-Man 3 a 2/5 for exactly the same reasons as Mike. I'm writing this simply because I felt the need to roast the movie for being so freakin' terrible.

A while back, I wrote a feature on a blog that I rarely update discussing the top five worst sequels, particularly those in the presence of better films of the same franchise. This would very much join the ranks. It's Matrix Reloaded bad. It's Alien Vs. Predator bad. It's freakin' Batman & Robin bad.

First thing's first: the villains. Everyone wanted to see Venom. That's why I went. Even if he was only in the last minute, I wanted to see Venom. And at the end, I wished I hadn't. Venom sucks. He's annoying (no, that loud cat noise isn't scary, it's embarassing). He isn't intimidating. It seemed like, just as Mike said, Raimi just didn't care much for the character. Consequently, neither did the audience. The Sandman is weak, but not quite as weak as Venom. The creation sequence was pretty dumb (the whole "deus ex machina" theory was huge here: "I can't think of how to introduce this character or wrap up this weak plot, so here comes divine coincidence."), but not quite as dumb as the StayPuft Marshmallowman-esque Sandman near the finale. Not sure how he got that big. Maybe I missed something.

Actually, maybe I missed a lot.

I'm not sure how Harry's butler could have figured out what happened to Norman, but apparently he did, igniting one of the most ridiculous tag-team battles ever. Maybe I didn't factor in that evidence regarding Uncle Ben's death was inexplicably found in what is probably (don't quote me, I'm not a comic-reader) years after the killing. Maybe I forgot that Kirsten Dunst's contract requested that she sing. Maybe it slipped my mind that this was a superhero movie and not a musical. Maybe I missed the part where little kids yelling "Wicked cool!" and throwing in an American flag for commercial purposes were good filmmaking techniques. Maybe I couldn't quite grasp how Parker's professor-friend could say the symbiote (the meteor that fell out of sky without a sound, turned into a black fungus, and crawled onto Parker's bike to "lay in wait") is beyond his understanding in one scene and then rattle off its chemical structure a scene or two later. Who knew a pumpkin bomb would leave one character with a scar and completely vaporize another...

Oh yeah, and to top it all off, Spidey goes "emo", to the point of flipping his hair and wearing black eyeliner (no, that's not a bad joke). It's insulting. I feel generous giving it a 2/5.

Maybe ALL of those things slipped my mind, but I did remember one thing: Bruce Campbell singlehandedly saved this movie from a "1" rating. Don't rent this to see him steal a five-minute scene as a French dude. Just remember that if you choose this movie to make out in, stop sucking face for those five minutes. At scene change, continue.

If you watch those five minutes, and make out the rest of the film: you have no reason not to give this a 5/5.

If you loved it: thanks, douchebag. You're the reason why there's a sequel to Fantastic Four coming out...

Spider-Man 3: 2/5 reviewed by Mike

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I not only am a total comic geek, but I love the first two Spidey films. They're what fanboys point to as the pinnacle of Superhero movie making. But this piece of work falls short in so many ways, it will be incredibly difficult for me to keep this review to the normal length.

The first problem isn't necessarily Sam Raimi's fault. I think the studio told him "you WILL do Venom, you WILL do Gwen Stacy, etc." But aside from Gwen being forced to a badly acted bit part that isn't close to any of her comic book iterations, it becomes clear right from the get go that Sam doesn't really know the Venom story (it wasn't part of his childhood Spidey experience) nor much like it. In fact, I think he hates Venom and Brock as characters, and it shows up in his handling of them. Not only does "venom" become a skinny, snively, reverb-laced whimp, but he's only in the movie for about ten minutes at the very end. If you're a Venom fan, you will hate this film.

The second big problem emanates from the first, and that is that there is simply too much going on. There's no main story here. You've got about 4 or 5 plots going on that all compete for screentime. Romance with MJ. Harry becoming the new Goblin. Sandman. Eddie Brock. The Black Suit. Venom. You'll find yourself saying: "man, they could've just left Sandman out," but then you'll think, "Well, I guess they could have just left Venom out," and you'll keep saying this until you realize that none of the plot elements are actually important. It's a ton of ideas thrown together with nothing to guide them or keep them in one piece. This carries over into how the film was written and shot. This is a "scene" movie. i.e. there isn't really a story or character development, it's like they sat in a room going, "what if there was a scene where this happened--what if there was a scene where that happened?" And they never made a story that might be able to incorporate those scenes, they just filmed them all and spliced them together. This is a prime example where none of the story comes from the characters, instead characters are warped and forced into actions contrary to what we know of them, just so Raimi could go through a checklist of plot points.

The other thing that ruins this movie is the incredible cheesiness. Not only is the acting over-the-top melodrama (even by superhero standards) but I knew I was out for sure when Peter Parker starts playing piano solos, dancing around a nightclub, swinging from chandeliers, in a giant choreographed musical number. I didn't know whether to expect Ron Burgundy to bust out some jazz flute, or whether Disney's Aristocats were gonna barge in. The relationship between Peter and Harry becomes just silly. None of the good themes within it are explored, but instead it becomes cheesy to the point where you're expecting them to make out. Stan Lee's cameo (why do they give the man LINES?) will make you throw up, and Sandman, who at first seems to be a fairly complex, relateable character, by the end of the movie gets reduced to a bunch of grunts and "Mummy" rip off's. The ending two scenes are among the cheesiest and just plain dumbest in recent memory. The only really good moment is Bruce Campbell's cameo, which was awesome. It's probably the reason the movie didn't get a 1/5.

Post Production aspects fail you as well. Although the sand effects are actually really awesome about 75% of the time, the rest of the CGI looks awful. The green-screen and digital stuff REALLY stands out, like it's rushed, or unpolished. But by far, what makes the movie almost unwatchable is the score. This is the worst score I've ever heard on a movie, ever. Fight scenes have cheesy (read: square) "jazz" being played behind them, all the quiet moments have huge strings blaring over them, and the amount of bassoon lines to tell us that this guy is a bad guy will drive you absolutely insane. People around me in the theater were making comparisons to the Adam West Batman show. The score at every scene reminds you you're watching a bad movie, takes you completely out of the action and beats you over the head. Even if this movie were perfect in every other way, I don't think I could give it higher than a '3' just for the score.

I can't tell you how sad this makes me. A sense of betrayal and defeat weighed me down for literally days after seeing this, and I couldn't write a review right away. I was totally ready to give this movie a 5, but as it went on, I was devastated over and over. As soon as I got home, I had to go pull a bunch of old Spidey comics off the shelf and read them, to remind myself that I really do like these characters, and they are good (thank you Bendis!) I know that you Spidey fans and comic fans will probably see this no matter what I tell you, but please, don't waste your money. This isn't even worth a rental, even for fans. Maybe especially for fans.