Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Get it away from me!
Image via pirates wiki

To, ah, 'celebrate' the recent release of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides I thought I'd look over a few reviews for Captain Jack Sparrow's previous adventure, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (don't exactly go for pithy titles do they?). Now when this film was released I refused to see it on account of how shit the previous one was, however I was eventually forced to watch the bloody thing. It was at this point that I realised that I had been wrong! It was far worse than even I had imagined. Sparrow is even more annoying than ever, with Depp's accent still sounding like a yank doing a bad impression of David Bowie. Whilst Knightley and Bloom were, and I had thought this impossible, even more wooden than in the previous two. And the plot? God only knows. Still, PotC:AWE proved to be popular with the general populace, netting nearly a billion dollars. Thus proving once and for all that people are idiots and that I need to be put in charge. Oh, and it was popular on amazon too as these reviews attest:

I found Pirates 3 to be a far more satisfying viewing experience than the previous two films in the trilogy (Really? I mean the first one was alright, the second was garbage but this one is a still steaming dog turd of a movie.). The mood is much darker and grittier than One or Two (But it's ostensibly a family film. Why should being 'darker' be lauded?), apparent from the opening scenes which feature graphic (for a Disney/12 Cert film) mass executions as large numbers of pirates and their associates - including women and children - queue up for the gallows. (Ah, nothing quite like the brutal hanging of children to complete a family night out. Honestly, which brainiac thought that was even remotely appropriate?)
This is followed by an almost surreal voyage beyond "World's End", lots of mysticism and rather less in the way of pirate yo ho ho and silliness that made the first two movies rather cliched (At least the first was fun in places, the second started the move away from that, but this is just grim.). All the characters have their own agendas, everyone is double crossing everyone else (To such an extent that you just stop giving a fuck about them.) and the producers have no qualms about killing off several characters as the movie progresses. (Just a shame I didn't care what happened to any of them. I honestly think I could care more about the fate of a louse in my nether regions than a character in this heap.)

The battle scenes are quite graphic - not particularly bloody or gory, but certainly more violent than before and, again, people die on both sides. (Again, who did Gore Verbinski think he was making this for?)

The Blu-Ray transfer is superb (Well you'd hope so for how much the film cost to make...), crystal clear picture on the Sony PS3 (Don't sully the poor machine with this festering pile of manure. I should phone the RSPCPS3...) to a Hitachi plasma screen. The movie would really have benefited from a DTS soundtrack but the Dolby Digital 5:1 does a fair job. The music score from Hans Zimmer really immerses you in the action and at times is quite moving. 

This is a long film at around 1619 mins (It just never ends! 2001: A Space Odyssey is shorter than this, and that takes you from the birth of mankind through to the creation of a whole new species!) and could probably have benefited from a bit of pruning (Yes. In the same way that Justin Bieber could do with 'a bit' of shooting, or Nixon could have done with 'a bit' of jailing...). However it is a credit to the story (Story? What story? I've read children's novels with a better, tighter plot than this.) and production that things never really flag (They fucking well do! The whole bloody thing is just flag.) and you are not looking at the clock as with some longer movies. (The clock would be far more entertaining though...) 

Buy, Buy, Buy! (If you fancy nearly three hours of grim badly acted, badly directed shite then by all means do as he suggests.)

I hope that this is not a serious review, I really do:

 This is another spectacular film (It isn't. It is staggeringly far from spectacular. I suppose it could be acceptably described as 'spectacularly bad', but that is really the only time that word and this film should be used in the same sentence.), stunning conceptualisation (Using big words doesn't escape the fact you've given an abysmal film 5 stars. It just makes you sound like a prick. A stupid prick.), and great conclusion (Yes, I too felt that the closing credits was the best bit of the film...). Firstly, the incredible conceptual realisation (You're being a prick again.) of Jack Sparrow wandering the Realms of Madness in the Domain of Davey Jones' Locker. This alone is worthy of 4 of the 5 gold stars (That should have been shortened slightly to one sentence. It's more stilted than Orlando Bloom the way you've done it.). The deeper reality (Good God you're a pretentious prick. A pretentious prick that doesn't even have the common decency to be pretentious about good films.) of how lost souls are bound to the corrupted Flying Dutchman is amazingly well done (No it isn't. I don't recall anything 'well done' about the film. At all.). The way the loose ends from the earlier films are sorted out and tied off is masterful (If by 'masterful', you mean stupid and convoluted, then yes!). Bringing in the Calypso Mythos was novel (It was fecking stupid.), and very well done (It was fecking stupid.). And the final twist, involving THE Pirate's Life for one of the lead characters, is really compelling (It was not compelling. Turner had never been more than an annoying plank of wood throughout, so why should I care what happened to him?). This is another worthy example of a "fantasy film for youngsters" for adults (Well it certainly ain't for children. Or adults whose brain cells outnumber their limbs, for that matter). If anyone makes the mistake of thinking the plot is erratic (It is.), then they are obviously a) not paying attention (I was.), and b) expecting modern films to be made for people whose lips move when they read - which this is not (Now look here you little shit, I understood Inception first time around. I class intelligent films such as The Godfather, 2001, Moon, Memento and, hell, Tarkovsky's Solaris among my favourite films. I am much, much smarter than you. This film is shit. The writers made it up as they went along without bothering to check over what they'd already written. Twists don't make a film clever. This is barely above Bay, if that.). Nevertheless it doesn't try to be anything more than outrageously larger-than-life entertainment (Then why does it fail so miserably at even that low target?). There are many levels of humour (None of which are funny), twists (That you stop giving two shits about after the nth one.), and stings (Against characters that it would be kind to describe as two-dimensional.), and, in the main, the sharp witty script (Ha!) which we have come to expect (I already said it was worse than even I thought it would be.). Worth watching again and again. (If you're a masochist.)

And another:

Everyone is saying how bad this film is... (Because it is bad. To show it at Guantanamo Bay would contravene the Geneva Convention it's so bad. Not that the US would care mind you...) but I disagree (Are you a moron, or just deliberately contrary?). I thought it was fantastic (Why? Why would you do this to me?). The special effects are amazing and I didn't find the plot hard to follow at all (It isn't really, it's just stupid. Putting in so many twists merely serves to diminish the impact of the twists. You end up knowing there will be twists, which defies the whole point of the fucking twist! You might as well have not fucking bothered!). I thought it was very easy to follow!

Johnny Depp was superb as always (He can be superb. But not in this. Why Johnny? Why do you agree to shit like this and The Tourist? You can't need the money and surely you get enough offers to keep you occupied doing things that aren't shit? Why can't you go back to being in good films? You were good in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, why can't you be in more things like that? Why Johnny? Why?), and supported by an incredible cast- Jack Davenport, Tom Hollander, Mackenzie Crook, Bill Nighy etc. Even Keira Knightley seeed to have come into her own in this film (Yes it's definitely  this film she became good in. Not her Oscar nominated roles in Pride & Prejudice or Atonement, but his.). The weak link was Orlando Bloom, who did nothing for me except make me cringe every time he opened his mouth (Well we agree there). the real star for me though was Naomie Harris. I just loved her portrayal of Tia Dalma and she stole every scene that she was in. (Was she the one that was borderline-racist? No, not the the Chinese guy who was like Fu Manchu, the woman...)

I thought the ending was very successful (I'd certainly take Knightley's fate, only having to see Bloom every 10 years...). They could have gone for a soppy, 'happily ever after' ending... but they didn't and that really impressed me. It would have ruined the whole thing if they had. (Trust me, the whole thing was already ruined beyond all hope of redemption by then.)

OK... this film is not an intellectual film (I'll say)... but it doesn't pretend to be (That's no excuse.). It's a film you go to see for some lighthearted, swashbuckling fun (Then why, pray tell, is it neither of those things?). That's it. If you go in expecting anything more... you will be disappointed. (I expected less and I was still disappointed...)

Ah what the hell, here's one more:

What can I say? I mean, 3 hours is a BIT long...! (About 3 hours too long if you ask me...) And the storyline falls apart like porridge if you think about it too hard (Or, indeed, if you thin about it quite softly...), but you've got to admit that Johnny Depp's done himself proud (No he hasn't. He's sold his integrity for a bit of dough.) - I don't think I've ever laughed so much! (Children being hanged are hilarious...)

Ok, so POTC 3 is the least funny of the lot (Jack Sparrow only says savvy once!!! (The horror! The horror!)), but it's definately the most epic (Well it certainly meets the length requirement for that tag...). I mean, there's a blooming great whirlpool! (Who needs plot, acting, direction, editing, characterisation or plot when you have a whirlpool? Someone needs to phone the Academy quick!) And there's a sea battle thats acted out with entirely graphic sea! I mean, clever or what?!? (No. The aforementioned Solaris is clever. Inception is clever. Even The Hangover is clever in places. This doesn't get anywhere near.)

I defy you to find a funnier trilogy then Pirates of the Caribbean (Back to the Future.). It's basically impossible! (No it isn't, it took me a few seconds.) OK, there are bits that you get a bit lost in, but WHO CARES!?!? (Me. Because it doesn't know what's happening or why either.) Becuase, quite frankly, it's a laugh, and that's the only thing you want from POTC apart from the WOW-factor of the animations. (But why can't it be more? I like fun films. If they are good. This meets neither of those criteria.)

So get it (No. You can't tell mw what to do.). It's one of my family's favourite and most-watched films! (Your family is stupid then...) I mean, there are a few people who are disappointed (A few? There are loads of us) (so if you're worried you'll be one of them, rent it) BUT YOU'VE GOT TO SEE IT!!! (No you don't. Think what better things you could do with that three hours. Like attaching your scrotum to the back of a drag racer.)

I think that'll do to be honest, but don't worry, I haven't even looked at reviews from amazon.com yet...

Buried

He's not having a good day... image via The Guardian

2010's Buried stars Ryan Reynolds (and except for a few people the other end of a phone, only Ryan Reynolds) as an American truck driver in Iraq who is kidnapped by terrorists and buried alive. The entire film stays in the coffin for the full running time, with Reynolds becoming more and more stressed by the situation as time goes own. The film was very well received by critics, but obviously it took no time at all to find some contrary opinions on amazon.co.uk:

A man makes phone calls in a coffin for an hour and a half (Yes I suppose that is true, but every film would be simple if you whittle it down to a single sentence. The Godfather saga would be pretty simple if you described it as 'A man becomes a crime boss and things don't go well for 9 hours.')

I'm surprised there are customers on here giving this film 5 stars (Really? I'm not surprised that there are 1 star reviews. Peoples opinions differ.), i.e the highest rating possible suggesting this is some sort of amazing film (Yes, and? They obviously felt that it deserved those 5 stars. Personally I'd say four stars would be more appropriate but I can see where they are coming from.). Even if you liked the film could you really say it was that good and mean it? (What? Obviously they did because otherwise they wouldn't've given the film 5 stars would they? People didn't give the bloody film 5 stars just to hurt you.) You would want to sit through it more than once? (Yes I would. Indeed I almost certainly will.)

Anyway, the title of my review pretty much sums up the film (Again, you shouldn't just describe a film in a sentence. Citizen Kane could become 'A dick dies.' But that would be stupid.), which creates unrealistic (Unrealistic? How so?) suspense and for the most part is Ryan Reynolds making increasingly frantic phone calls (Yes. The phone calls are excellent at introducing fresh tension through his not entirely successful phone calls.). All the while the background music is ramping up and the camera spins about a bit trying to convince you this is a thrilling film (It's not trying to 'convince' you of anything. It is a thrilling film.). I found it actually quite tedious (Well you are very much in the minority there I'm afraid), especially as most viewers know the camera never leaves the coffin (Many will know that for sure, but you can't possibly claim that 'most' will know that. Not if you expect to be taken seriously anyway.), nothing else is going to happen, so in the end all you want to know is if he gets out or not (I knew that the camera never left and it didn't ruin the film for me at all, there was still plenty of tension.). The only drama that unfolds for the protaganist is dealing with annoyingly stupid/heartless people on the phone (The annoyance of being put on hold/coming across unhelpful phone operators is very much at the heart of the film, at least as much as being buried alive.) and a ridiculous scene where a snake comes out of nowhere, providing something for our hero to do (I believe it had come into the coffin through a small hole whilst he was sleeping). 

I really wouldn't bother with this film, it was brave attempt but turned out to be an empty film with little point. (Well it has as much a point as any other film. Is to entertain and to thrill no longer good enough? Besides this film does have messages. That innocent people are often made to suffer during times of war, and that being put on hold is really fucking annoying...)

Here's another one for your delectation:

This is a film that is far too in love with its own cynicism (I don't think its 'too in love' with anything. I mean I could get it if you complained that it was trying to be too clever with its stripped back story, but too in love with its cynicism? Give me a break.). That causes two major problems (I bet that they aren't that major...), but first, the good things, which others have touched on ('Others' being intelligent people probably...);

The script is, by and large, pretty good. (The script was very good. No 'by and large' about it.)
There is a VERY tense atmosphere. (There is. Congrats.)
The lead and solo [visible] actor is excellent. (He is indeed. Not many would have thought that Ryan Reynolds could have pulled this off, but he did. Expertly. Also, I would throw in the direction by Rodrigo Cortés as being superb. He got that camera into every conceivable spot.)

BUT...the film doesn't want to you to feel good about anything (It doesn't beat people up for being happy. I mean it isn't by any means a happy little number, but I've seen far more depressing films.). Anything at all (It's probably okay with you being glad that you aren't buried alive...). Our hero, Paul, phones several people. He's constantly put on hold. Whilst this adds to the tension, it soon becomes clear that rather than using a jaded worldview to create dramatic effect, the writer is more interested in making his character suffer because he can't think of something else to do (Look, films rely on interesting events. Sometimes, those events are not happy events. The film would be pretty dull if Reynolds just went around doing a bit of shopping and driving his truck around. If you want to watch something that makes you feel good inside stick with Disney. Not a film entitled Buried about a man who is buried alive. I'm forced to ask, how fucking dimwitted are you?).

So enter the plot holes: we are presented with some incongruities that never amount to anything (I'm curious to see how bad these are... Oh, and SPOILERS ahoy);

-A woman mad at Paul...though we never find out why, making his angry outburst totally unsympathetic (Pretty sure it is explained actually... And he's buried alive. I think he was pretty upset about that so his outburst is really quite understandable...).
-A woman knowing Paul's name then pausing dramatically before telling him HOW she knew it, making you suspect something is wrong (I think that is what is known as a red herring.).
-The counter-hostage guy man acting very suspiciously on the phone, again leading you to think that something larger and more devious is happening (That is a continuation of the previous red herring. It is perfectly acceptable for a film to lead you to question another characters motives, when they are in fact clean.).
-A video of a fellow hostage (NOT buried, by the way (Well they didn't bury her so that they could force him to do as they asked by threatening her.)) who is killed. Yet the story she gives and the story given by the people on the phone don't add up. This too goes nowhere (I don't remember anything like that, personally. And besides, not one of those is a plot hole. A plot hole is something that disrupts the flow of the plot. Things such as the omission of relevant information, direct contradiction between two parts of the film, events which are impossible or otherwise do not sit with the established world, or such things as characters performing actions that contradict past actions etc. could all be plot holes. What you have listed here do not fall into any of these categories.).

And then Dramatic DevelopmentsTM ('DevelopmentsTM'? What the fuck?) that DO lead to something, namely two F-16's levelling part of the city where Paul is buried. Why are they flattening part of a city? Because the scriptwriter wants the character to suffer, logic be damned. (Because there are lots of insurgents there? That might be a reason...) 

And so we come to the ending (SPOILERS aplenty here too, funnily enough...). I could have forgiven the flaws above- even the silly use of a Zippo lighter in an enclosed space that doesn't eat up the air at all- (But it does use up the air. He says repeatedly that he can't breathe properly when he has it on. And then someone else tells him to use it sparingly because it uses up oxygen. There is plenty of air in a coffin though, he would last a little while.) if the ending hadn't been so bad, so WRONG (An ending cannot be 'wrong'. You may dislike it, but it is not wrong. Besides, the ending sits perfectly with the rest of the film. If the rest of the picture had been a rabbit doing a merry jig in a field, then perhaps you could have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't.). Rather than amount to anything, even in a tragic or dramatic way that moves the story or your understanding forward, all we learn is that the [END] happens, then the film finishes. (Because the story has been told. Paul is dead so there's nothing else to say.)

No aftermath, no consequences (I think the aftermath is pretty obvious. Why does it need to be shown?); just pure, hateful cynicism for it's own unlovely sake (Why can't a film be cynical? And as I said up there ☝, there is plenty of purpose for this film). The sake of cheap shock (It's not cheap. In many ways this is far more terrifying than Saw or anything like that. Gore is cheap shock, tension and suspense are the true kings of horror). And that is why I despise this film. 

It goes nowhere then stops. (I wish your review had stopped about 8 paragraphs ago...)

Those were both pretty long, so we'll close today's edition with this shorter one:

I was'nt (Wasn't, the apostrophe denotes where letters have been removed, not where two words have been joined.) expecting much before watching this film (Always good to go in with an open mind...) - but the fact it had Ryan Reynolds in was the factor that made me watch this / very disappointing (That is so very not how forward slashes should be used...) - we never left the coffin (Not necessary. Indeed, I would say the fact we never leave the coffin brings us closer to Conroy's plight.), we never saw the introduction of him getting into the coffin (Because that would have been completely extraneous and unnecessary. He's in there, so we can safely presume he was put in there, why would we need to see it?), lots of completely black screen moments where you're mind just drifted away (Your small mind might have drifted away, but I felt the black screen bits with only the sound of his ragged breathing pretty damn effective.), his air supply seemed to last an awful long time unless he was getting air in (It was a fairly big box. It would have taken a while for the air to run out.) - because somehow a snake got in ?? (It came in a hole, yes, but underground, so little air would come in through there) He fell asleep at least twice (So? What point are you trying to make here?), he was tied and gagged in the coffin - the abductor took a big risk, that he would wake in time before suffocating and could then release himself (He was bound and gagged, one suspects, so that he couldn't shout for help or anything should he wake up before they had got him into the coffin.) and get to the items they left for him at his FEET ? (They probably just chucked them into the coffin) He had the poorst (Good God man, learn to type...) quality battery in the phone, it only took one or two calls before losing charging bars (It was an old model, that had only half battery when he found it.). He was told to use the phone sparingly - but the guy who told him to do this ended up telling him a long story (I think he weighed up the options and decided that making him feel better was more important. Especially since he had already realised they probably wouldn't find him in time). 

Theres lots more i could add (Bet you've run out of things to say...)- but this film was nonsense from start to finish (It wasn't really... It made perfect sense.), made on the lowest budget of any film i could imagine (It was made for less than $2 million. I've seen films with smaller budgets. Paranormal Activity, for example. But just because it has a small budget doesn't make it bad. In many ways it can be a plus since there is less pressure to be hugely successful to recoup the funds there is more artistic freedom. I'd rather see this than the multi-million dollar train wrecks that are the Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers movies again...).  

If you want a good film about a guy buried alive - try "Buried Alive" & "Buried Alive II" starring Tim Matheson. (Films so good they don't even have wikipedia pages... Even IMDB, the world's worst site for sensible ratings, can only muster around 6 and 4 out of 10 respectively for them.)

I think that'll do for today, though there are plenty more reviews for this film, so we may be returning some day in the future!