The Matrix Revolutions

Right, time to round off the reviews of “The Matrix” with my perspective on “The Matrix Revolutions”. Surely it can’t be worse than “Reloaded” was? Right? Er…

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

I’m starting to like sequels less and less. For every “Dark Knight”, there are about fifty “At World’s End”s. Unfortunately, “Revolutions” is the from the latter category. Actually, it’s scarily like “At World’s End” in a number of ways.

“Everything that has a beginning has an end. I see the end coming, I see the darkness spreading. I see death.”

The plot follows on directly where “Reloaded” left off. Neo (Keanu Reeves) is seemingly in a coma after stopping Sentinels with his mind in the Real World- however, we learn that he is actually stuck in limbo between the Matrix and the Real World. Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) continues to replicate himself in the Matrix and has managed to infiltrate Zion too, in the form of Bane (Ian Bliss) who is also in a coma. The machines are still tunnelling down towards Zion and the humans are preparing for war. Add in a crisis of faith for Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and a hojillion other characters, some introduced in “Reloaded” and others not and you’ve got a bit of a mess on your hands. The actor comments are exactly the same as in my “Reloaded” review- nothing much changes, except that Reeves has now perfected the act of listening to a long, technical speech, pausing and then asking a simple question like “Why?” or “Where?”. The only new people of note are Ian Bliss, who does a brilliant Hugo Weaving impression and Mary Alice- the new Oracle, replacing Gloria Foster who tragically died before filming was completed. However, whilst the Foster’s Oracle gave off that friendly grandmother vibe, Alice’s Oracle seems the type of grandmother to tell you to sit up straight and chastise you for not calling more often. Odd point, I know.

“Revolutions” is more action-orientated than “Reloaded”, however it seems in the rush to give you more bang for your buck, the Wachowskis have started to repeat themselves. The gun battle in the fetish club plays out like an uninspired lobby rip-off from “The Matrix”, the only difference being that the bad guys fight on the ceiling. I really dislike the final Smith/Neo fight too, where it turns into a sort of “Dragonball Z” type thing where people can fly and mere punches send massive shockwaves out. It’s all a bit too silly. I’m fine with the suspension of disbelief but when two characters who were so grounded in the first one, are flying and knocking the crap out of each other whilst it rains like an afternoon in Cardiff, I start to lose it. The real world fight between Neo and Bane/Smith earlier in the film is much better and shows up the finale for what it is – an overindulgent SFX mess.

“It was, after all, it was your life that taught me the purpose of all life. The purpose of life is to end.”

To be honest, I don’t like a lot of “Revolutions”. It just ends up being just another sci-fi film with unintentionally funny, repetitive dialogue, instead of this epic trilogy that was promised circa 2002. The one thing I hate about the sequels is the mythical/psychological/technological crap that both films are laden down with. Yes, “The Matrix” had these things too, what with introducing place names like “Zion” and character names like “Morpheus”- the difference is that in “The Matrix”, it was there if you wanted to find it, whereas in both “Reloaded” and “Revolutions” – the Wachowskis try and cram all this stuff down your throat, making you feel overwhelmed and them look pretentious and twattish. Sorry Wachowskis, but you lost me at “systemic anomaly”.

The Matrix Reloaded

Predictably, it’s time to review the second film in “The Matrix” trilogy. Let’s reload before the revolutions begin…

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

After having my brain and face melted by the awesomeness of “The Matrix”, you could imagine how I felt when they announced they were filming two sequels back-to-back. I was so damn excited. Not only would there be more amazing fights and effects, but I was old enough to see them in the cinema! I felt like the luckiest person ever. Then I actually saw “…Reloaded”. I think that something snapped in my brain, because I was massively disappointed, but somehow convinced myself it was the best film ever. Well, not any more! Today I break my silence, today I stand up tall, today I honestly convey what I think of “The Matrix Reloaded”!

“We are here because of you, Mr Anderson. We’re here to take from you what you tried to take from us.”


It’s funny how “The Matrix” series and the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series mirror each other. You get the sleeper hit of the first one, which becomes ridiculously popular on Video/DVD. Then some odious film fucks decide that they don’t have enough mountains of Coke at their parties so they commission sequels to be filmed back-to-back. The second one is ridiculously complicated and sours hopes for the third one. The third one is released and somehow manages to fall below even the lowest expectations of the World-weary audience. What’s that? A plot summary? Good luck. The film is way too convoluted. Basically, Neo (Keanu Reeves) is the One and can shape everything in the Matrix (i.e. the World we live in) to his will. He can defeat Agents, fly, but somehow still can’t act. Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) is also still inexplicably in love with him. Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) is somehow back and can now replicate himself. Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) is also in the mix somewhere.

I think the key word to describe “Reloaded” is “overambitious”. There are some truly great ideas here, but they are dealt with in a sloppy way. A prime example of this was the much hyped “Burly Brawl” in which Neo takes on hundreds of Agent Smiths. It’s a fantastic concept, but there were limits to the technology and the fight goes from an ingenious scrap between 10 Smiths and Neo, to a video game cutscene featuring a block of pixels vaguely resembling Keanu Reeves. Six years on, I’m still sure that it couldn’t be pulled off convincingly with today’s technology. It’s a case of big idea, limited means.

One of the biggest mistakes “Reloaded” makes is that we spend too much time in “the real World”, i.e. a scummy, muddy cave city called Zion where they have sweaty slow-motion raves to shitty music. It’s really boring. When we were in the real World in “The Matrix”, it was passable because the characters were interesting enough to make us want to know more about them. Thing is, they pretty much killed all the interesting characters in the first one, so that sucks balls. Speaking of which- a Trinity/Neo sex scene? Who’s bright idea was that? It would be O.K. if it wasn’t so embarrassingly done. I know the scene is there to prove to us that Trinity and Neo are a loving couple- and that’s fine. However, the way it’s done comes across as one of those foreign “art” films where they all get naked and shag in low-level lighting to odd music. (Sigh)

A lot that the scenes I like in “Reloaded” are often the lower-key ones. I liked seeing the Oracle (Gloria Foster) again, eventhough her lines are nowhere near as good as they were in the first one. I also liked the one-on-one fight between Neo and Seraph (Collin Chou). In fact, the thing I liked most about the huge freeway sequence was the Morpheus/Agent fight on top of a truck. It’s very well done. Clearly a lot of work (and money) went into the freeway sequence. It’s huge in scale. However, it says a lot that my favourite bit wasn’t any of the car flipping or the bike racing, but some good old fashioned fisticuffs on top of a truck. Maybe they should have concentrated on that rather than all this superfluous stuff. Talking of superfluous, the Twins- why were they in it? Completely wasted potential as I liked their unique gimmick of becoming all transparent and ghost-like at will. They were British though, so they reminded me Hollywood can go fuck itself.

“Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without.”


I can’t review this film without talking about the infamous “Architect” scene. What the fuck is Colonel Sanders on about? I’m not stupid but I found myself getting lost in the sea of elongated words and mini T.V. Neos. Much like the rest of the film it’s abstruse (see what happens when you use words that people don’t generally know? You’re taken right out of it…)

“Reloaded” was never going to live up to being a worthy successor to “The Matrix”. It just couldn’t have the impact that the first film had. It sacrifices the human element for action and then expects you to pay attention when it’s talking about all its religious/mythological bullshit parallels. I therefore give it an average 3 stars. Ergo! Vis-a-vis! Concordantly!


The Matrix

Happy new year to you all. I realise that I’ve been slacking off lately, what with no updates in over a week. This is disgraceful and I shall correct this by reviewing “The Matrix” trilogy. Let’s start with the first film in the series, shall we?

The Matrix (1999)



1999 was an odd year. It was a year where fear of “The Millennium Bug” was a genuine concern and not just a laughable notion. It was also the year that Benjamin Jack Browne III Esq. turned 13 and his outlook and life and films was starting to change. I was bought “The Matrix” on video for my birthday and it blew my mind. As soon as I finished watching it, my friend and I rewound it and watched it again. It is hard to describe how taken with this film I was, but let’s just say I was trying to bend spoons for the next few months.

“What is the Matrix?”

The story follows Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) aka the computer hacker “Neo”- a man obsessed with finding the mysterious individual known as Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne). Also Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) are in it. To be honest, I think nearly everyone has seen this film, so I won’t bother with a redundant plot summary. I’m tempted to use the phrase “modern classic”, but since this film is almost 10 (!) years old now, maybe it has moved in purely “classic” status. The concept is amazing. I mean, we’ve all questioned the nature of our reality- it’s a human trait. Films have explored this idea too, but I think that “The Matrix” is one of the only ones to have done it successfully (the only other one that comes to mind is “The Truman Show”). In terms of acting, Keanu Reeves can’t. We know this to be true and yet his lack of skill in the field of thespianism doesn’t annoy me in this film. I’m not sure if it’s because he’s not given much to do or what, but I can completely look past all his flaws and just watch the story unfold. You just know a film is good when it’s possible to overlook a bad actor, let alone a bad lead actor. Everyone else is great, but the stand out performance by far is Weaving’s Agent Smith. He’s got an amazing drawl – “Mr. Aaaaanderson…” and he’s a bastard to boot. Brilliant stuff.

I have a vivid memory of the beginning of “The Matrix”. When Trinity jumped, hung in mid-air for a second as the camera panned round and then delivered a massive kick to two policemen, my jaw hit the floor and I uttered a very soft but assured “Holy fuck!” Evidently, many filmmakers felt the same as ,arguably, a new way of big-budget filmmaking had just been born. As I was watching through the film recently, I kept forgetting how many good bits there were, be it a line of dialogue or a frackin’ awesome fight scene. The one thing that bugged me about it wasn’t really the film’s fault. Unfortunately, the film seems like a parody of itself at times- what with “Bullet Time” and Matrix parodies cropping up in everything in the early Noughties. It hasn’t stopped either- what with shitty daytime T.V. ads even going as far as to rip off the “Guns…lots of guns” scene- proof here. Yes, thank you so much you advert bastards, when I’m watching a film I clearly want to be reminded of your shitty comparison rip-off crap halfway through (!) Wankers.

Favourite scenes of mine include the famous lobby sequence in which Neo and Trinity turn a shiny marble Government lobby into dust and debris with the aid of several thousand bullets and some flashy wire-fu moves. I love the subway showdown between Neo and Smith too. The brutality and “down and dirty” nature of it really appeals to me. You feel every punch and kick- it’s great.

“I know kung fu”

I’m running out of things to say. Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), you’ve probably seen “The Matrix” and probably know every line and occurance like I do. I’m so glad that almost ten years on, I still think it’s a fantastic film. Let’s hope it still holds up in another ten.

Hot Fuzz

Can’t talk now… deadline to meet…New Year almost here….AARGHH!

Hot Fuzz (2007)


Sometimes I get the feeling that the trio of Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have been reading my “Things that are awesome and what I want to see in films in the future” diary. The films seem tailor-made to the sort of things I would put into films if I had money, talent and if anyone liked me. In any case, you’ve got to admire the efforts of what I call “The Holy Trinity”, those diary stealing, privacy invading fucks…

“Have you ever wondered why the crime rate in Sandford is so low, yet the accident rate is so high?”


The plot follows Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg)- a top cop in the London Metropolitan Police Service who is relocated to the quiet country town of Sandford, because he’s been making his co-workers “look bad”. Once there he meets inept Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), son of the Police Inspector Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent) and huge action movie fan. After Angel arrives, a series of grisly “accidents” happen in the town and Angel seems to be the only one who suspects foul play. Just like “Shaun of the Dead” it’s a great story and has some fantastic performances from the main cast. The supporting cast are not to be ignored, however, as they basically act as a “Who’s Who” of British stars, including Jim Broadbent, Timothy Dalton and Edward Woodward.

As you know, I loved “Shaun of the Dead”, but I kept getting the feeling that I was missing out on a lot of the in-jokes because I’m not really a fan of horror. “Hot Fuzz” rectifies this, being a pastiche of nearly every action film ever made. I was cackling like only a nerd can when little references to films like “Point Break” and “Bad Boys II” were made. I think that the film nails the whole insular, small town mindset that a lot of British towns have. In fact, talking of nerdism- I think the whole parody of the “kiss-off” lines ( i.e. Angel distracts a baddie with a cuddly monkey and then hits him, quipping “Playtime’s over!”) is brilliant. I mean, just watch any film from Arnie’s back catalogue, and you’ll find some gems.

“By the power of Greyskull!”


Pegg and Frost continue their persuit for “World’s Greatest Double Act” in this film, as they are both great. The thing I like about their on-screen relationship this time is that it is significantly different to “Shaun of the Dead”. In this film, Pegg is more the straight man whereas Frost is more loveable as Danny than he was as the foul-mouthed Ed. It’s clear Timothy Dalton had a good time making this as he chews every piece of scenery going with great aplomb.

“Hot Fuzz” is similar to “Shaun of the Dead” in the way that I can’t really pick out favourite scenes. The shoot-out is incredible and funny, but I’m also a fan of the fight (being careful about spoilers here) in the town. So, in conclusion- if you haven’t seen “Hot Fuzz” yet, you should because it’s off the fuckin’ chain!


Shaun of the Dead

With my self-imposed “50 reviews” deadline looming, I thought I’d round off 2008 with the first two films of the “Blood and Ice Cream” trilogy, “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”. First off, Mr. Of the Dead.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

I’m so glad “Shaun of the Dead” came out at the time that it did. I remember moaning about the fact that all the films that come from the ol’ British Isles were either the clichéd period dramas that we always pump out with no apparent irony, and romantic comedies probably starring Huge Grunt. Whilst this still hasn’t been fully resolved, “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” have gone a long way to rectify this.

“Look, I don’t care what the telly says, all right? We *have* to get out of here. If we don’t they’ll tear us to pieces, and that is really going to exacerbate things for all of us”

The story follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a thirty-something loser whose life is going nowhere. His girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) breaks up with him because of this, leaving Shaun heartbroken and depressed. After a heavy night of drinking with his best friend Ed (Nick Frost), Shaun returns home to the news that there’s a zombie invasion going on. The story is brilliant. I love the fact that the huge zombie invasion happens in the background of Shaun’s life. I’ve got to commend the fact that the cause of the zombification is not explained. Thank God there are films out there that let us decide for ourselves what the answers are, rather than spelling it out like we’ve all got jagged shrapnel embedded in our brains. My idea? Penguins with jetpacks decide enough is enough and wage biological warfare on us pesky humans.

I can’t really fault “Shaun of the Dead” on anything. The actors are all great, especially the double act of Pegg and Frost- surely one of the best comedy duos in a long, long time. It’s very funny, surprisingly touching in places and has enough classic zombie blood ‘n’ guts to keep even the most twisted of gore fans happy. I mean, a lot of the film consists of homage and parody, but it’s very cleverly done. You don’t get the feeling that it relying on other films’ ideas to carry it along. It’s got a clear sense of story and doesn’t lose sight of it even when the zombified shit hits the fan.

“Who died and made you fucking king of the zombies?”

In terms of favourite scenes, I love the “Don’t Stop Me Now” scene (I’m sure you know the scene I’m talking about) and the record flinging scene. Actually, to have “favourite scenes” seems like a bit of a disservice to the rest of the film. It’s fantastic and there’s a “oh, I like this bit” moment in pretty much every scene. If that isn’t a recommendation, I don’t know what is.

The Simpsons Movie

As I desperately race to get 50 reviews by the end of 2008, I’ve been frantically searching for suitable things to review. What better than the first big-screen adventure of everyone’s favourite yellow family? Well, probably a lot of things, but it was the only film I had to hand.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Like most people my age, I grew up watching “The Simpsons” on T.V. As I got older, I started getting more of the jokes and appreciating it more. What I’m trying to say is that “The Simpsons” has had a large effect on me for many years now. So, on paper I’m the movie writers’ worst enemy- the hardened Simpsons fan who’s seen it all and can quote it all. Did the film win me over? Find out the answer to the lamest cliffhanger ever, after the next paragraph!

“Homer: Don’t you just love being with someone who’s recklessly impulsive?
Marge : Actually, it’s aged me terribly.”

The story basically follows Homer’s (Dan Castellaneta) accidental pollution of Lake Springfield, which leads to the city of Springfield being declared toxic and encased in a giant dome. The Simpson family are forced to become fugitives after the townspeople discover that Homer is the one to blame. The plot is at least functional, although I’m not a big fan of the whole dome idea. In fact, I’m not really a fan of the story. It’s OK, but after the time it took to bring the Simpsons to the big screen and drafts this feckin’ film had (158!) I expected it to be the new Jesus in animated form. My main problem with the whole thing is the villain. For some reason, they used a new character called Russ Cargill, voiced by Albert Brooks. Why not Mr. Burns? He’s such a great character and one of my favourites. He’s done dastardly things such as blocking out the Sun in the series, so why is he apparently incapable of encapsulating the city in a giant dome? When it comes down to it, Russ Cargill isn’t a funny character.

The film raises a lot of questions too. Why did they make the Arnold Schwarzenegger parody character, Rainer Wolfcastle, actually Arnold Schwarzenegger? Why did people think the Spider-Pig thing was so hysterically funny? Why has Lisa’s (Yeardley Smith) new love interest got the worst “Oirish” accent I have ever heard? Why are the making some jokes a bit ruder (Homer giving double middle fingers) and then making others more child-friendly? (“He’s not Spider-Pig anymore, he’s Harry Plopper”- I’m sorry, but if you are over 10 and laugh at that, you’re an idiot) When it comes down to it, I don’t think “The Simpsons” works as a film. It feels a bit overstretched, considering it’s around 4 times as long as your average episode.

“Homer: Homer do good?
Bart: Actually, you’ve doomed us all. Again.”

All of the above are minor things, really. Okay, I’ve just said I don’t like the story, the villain and that I don’t think it works as a film-but all those grievances go away when you’re laughing this much. It’s very, very funny and so much better than most of the crap out there, posing as “comedies”. The only reason I seem to be quite harsh to it is that I love “The Simpsons” and you always hurt the ones you love most- especially if you’ve been drinking. These days, episodes of “The Simpsons” are hit-and-miss, but the movie is like a longer good episode. I love the fact that Green Day and especially Tom Hanks lend their voices to proceedings too. As I’ve said, “The Simpsons Movie” is funny, satirical and intelligent. Word of warning though- does contain animated wang.

Shoot ‘Em Up

After the depressing experience of reliving the “what ifs” and the “could have beens” of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” trilogy, I felt that I needed something a bit off the wall. Well, you can’t get much more off the wall than the Clive Owen starring “Shoot ‘Em Up”.

Shoot ‘Em Up (2007)

Being clever is a dangerous thing in the movie business. If you put a product out there that’s steeped in irony and post-modernism, chances are the ‘tards out there will take it at face value and believe that was the message you wanted to convey. Case in point-“Shoot ‘Em Up”.

“My God! Do we really suck or this guy really that good?”

The plot follows the mysterious Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) who inadvertently ends up with a baby in his care. Thing is, there seem to be quite a few people who want the child dead, especially “businessman” Hertz (Paul Giamatti). Along the way, Smith recruits prostitute D.Q. (Monica Bellucci) to help him care for the baby. Yes, the plot is naff- but in a film like this, the plot is shoved aside for set pieces and loud noises. I would normally complain about this, but the difference is that “Shoot ‘Em Up” is well aware of what it is doing and carries on shamelessly. “Refreshing” doesn’t cover it. The three lead actors are fine. They seem to get the odd tone of the film and play to it, especially Paul Giamatti-who spends 80% of the film gleefully snarling, like a dog with peanut butter stuck to the roof of its mouth.

Before we go further, let’s analyse the title. It’s not called “The Death Zone”,”Time to Kill 2″ or anything shite like that. It’s called “Shoot ‘Em Up”- a clear indication of the kind of meta-level this film is on. This isn’t the sort of film with quotable dialogue or amazing twists. It’s a John Woo film (hard)boiled down to the basic elements.

The action is superb. Every sequence is designed to give you a chuckle one minute and a surprise the next. Nearly all of which are set to music like Motorhead’s “Ace of Spades” and Wolfmother’s “The Joker and the Thief”. It’s completely nuts, but at the same time extremely likeable. Plus, it has a gunfight in nearly every scenario possible. There’s a gunfight in a warehouse, during a car chase and in a bathroom. Doesn’t sound that groundbreaking? Well, what if I was to tell you there’s a shoot-out during a birth, a shoot-out in mid-air and even one during a sex scene?

I have two main problems with this flick. As it’s quite a small film, budgetry restraints are quite evident here and there. The ideas are great, but I got the feeling that sometimes the director just didn’t have enough scratch to fully realise his blood-soaked vision. The second is a problem that most video games suffer- repetition. You might think it a bit odd for me to suddenly start talking about gaming, but that’s what “Shoot ‘Em Up” is. It’s the film equivalent of a bloodthirsty video game. I mean “Shoot ‘Em Up” is even a genre of game! As I was saying, repetition is a problem. I loved Smith killing a man with a carrot the first time I saw it because it was fresh, funny and fucked up in equal measures. By the second and third times I wanted to see something new- strangulation by a grapefruit, perhaps?

“Aren’t guns just fucking great, Hammerson?”

“Shoot ‘Em Up” is an unashamedly fun film. What I love about it is that it’s the sort of film readers of “Nuts” and “Loaded” will think is amazing, blissfully unaware that it’s mocking them the entire time.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

Third “Pirates…” review. Prepare accordingly.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007)

Now, if you ask the average film fan to rank the “Pirates…” films, they will most likely rank them in the descending order of:
“Curse of the Black Pearl”,
“At World’s End”
and then
“Dead Man’s Chest”.
However, I’m not an average person (or so my belt sizes keep telling me). I think “Dead Man’s Chest” is the superior of the sequels. I’ll tell you more in a minute.

“The song has already been sung! The brethren court is called!”

The plot is a continuation of the ridiculous number of character threads from “Dead Man’s Chest”. Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) is now executing anyone and everyone remotely associated with pirates. Due to this, a defiant song is sung to summon the nine pirate Lords to order. Thing is, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is dead and failed to appoint a new Lord before the Kraken munched on his face. So, Will (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) and the Black Pearl crew, led by Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) go on a mission to rescue Jack from Davy Jones’ Locker. Beckett also has the heart of Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and now can control Jones and the crew of the Flying Dutchman. He does so and is using Jones to wipe out pirate ships.

Unfortunately, “At World’s End” started off at a disadvantage because it had to carry on and end all the characters’ stories satisfactorily. Thing is, “Dead Man’s Chest” was so ridiculously complicated, “At World’s End” had very little chance of doing this. Also, I’m sure there was another insufferable prick studio exec shouting “bigger and better!” whenever he wasn’t snorting cocaine from a hooker’s navel. I knew the film was going to be on the faecal side of things when the damn thing opened up on a mass hanging. Nice one, Disney- good to know you’re still catering for the kiddies (!) Actually, it takes it one step further by showing a small child getting the ol’ rope neckwear. I know these things happened, but since we glossed over all the raping and pillaging that real pirates did, I figured the hanging thing would be left out. I realise that Jack Sparrow was nearly hanged in “Curse of the Black Pearl”, but the key word is “nearly”. He escaped with the help of Will and all was fine and dandy. Here, there are no miraculous escapes but a shot of the feet of lifeless bodies. I’m not against violence by any stretch of the imagination.What annoys me is there are plenty of films out there showing violence and people dying. In contrast, there are hardly any kid-friendly films out there that aren’t animated, and of the ones that aren’t- 90% of those are pure monkey bollocks. If I’m in a bloodthirsty mood, I’ll stick on “Rambo” and the like. However, it would be nice to have the family-friendly live action trilogy that seemed to be promised to us in the first one.

I came to the realisation that this film actually makes me angry. It’s clearly had all the money in the World spent on it and it still manages to be unintelligible and boring. Yes, that’s right- I said boring. Sure, there’s the feckin’ epic sea battle in a whirlpool at the end, but that’s about all that’s noteworthy. One of the film’s biggest mistakes is not re-introducing Jack sooner. He is the lifeblood of the series and when he’s not on screen we have to put up with Keira Knightley’s wobbly acting and Orlando Bloom’s consistently shite acting. When Jack finally does show up, there’s about ten Jacks all crewing the stationary Black Pearl. It’s not as entertaining as the film wants you to think it is. To be honest, it seems to me that the whole Davy Jones’ Locker bit is just an excuse to show off some (admittedly impressive) effects.

I remember when I heard that Keith Richards was going to be in one of the sequels. I thought it was a funny idea. However, seeing it isn’t as great as I thought it’d be- something which seems to be the theme of this film. Don’t even get me started on that Calypso/Davy Jones thing. Why the flying fuck did they feel the need to have Tia Dalma grow 60 feet tall and then explode into thousands of crabs? I don’t care what you, IMDB or anyone says. IT. DOESN’T. MAKE. ANY. SENSE. Plus, this film is even longer than “Dead Man’s Chest”, if you can believe that.

Since my bile ducts are starting to hurt, I’ll tell you the one thing or rather one scene that I like. It’s Beckett’s death scene when he slowly walks through his ship whilst everything blows the fuck up around him. I actually liked the character of Beckett as he was a booable (not a word, but should be) villain. The scene is not only a great send off to the character, but a triumph of special effects. Destruction has never looked so damn good. In fact, the effects are probably the only good thing in the film. I suppose if you treated it as a very long tech demo, it would work.

“Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness.”

In summary, there are a few good things in “At World’s End” but they are sparsely sprinkled throughout the harsh runtime. Overall though, this film is dense- in every sense of the word.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest

So, it’s time to review the second of the “Pirates…” films. Er, not much more to say really. You look lovely today, by the way.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006)

Why is it that film franchises insist on going darker for the sequel? “Star Wars” did it, “Indiana Jones” did it, as did “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. I’m actually getting a bit tired of it. I’m all for exploring a familiar concept in a new way, but there are other ways to do it.

“No, no! More wood! Big fire! I am chief! Want big fire!”


The plot is a continuation of the developments in “Curse of the Black Pearl”. Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) are due to be married and Jack (Johnny Depp) is once again captain of the Black Pearl. However, Will and Elizabeth’s wedding is interrupted by new villain in town, Lord Beckett (Tom Hollander) who arrests them for aiding and abetting a known pirate. They are sentenced to death if Will doesn’t help Beckett get Jack’s compass from him. The story is way, way too convoluted for its own good. The first one had a simple premise- damsel in distress, needs saving, they do so, there’s a happy ending and drinks all around. Here, it’s hard to keep up with who’s double-crossing who and every character’s motivation and back story. Thing is, we have a lot of new characters (such as Will’s father, Davy Jones, Tia Dalma etc) as well as pretty much every single character from the first one.It’s like a freakin’ Dickens novel with all the quality removed. It’s a shame to see good characters from the original, such as Norrington (Jack Davenport), wasted and given lacklustre lines. I like the idea of having continuity between films, but did we really need the dog with keys in its mouth in this film?

The other curse that plagues sequels is the phrase “bigger and better”. Studio execs get the idea that they need to up the ante in the second one and ignore the actual things that made it popular in the first place. “Dead Man’s Chest” is a textbook example of this- mostly abandoning all the humour and family-friendliness of the first one and replacing it with more explosions and fighting. This film is definitely bigger, with an unforgiving 150 minute runtime, but certainly not better.

Despite having a lot of problems, there is also a lot to like about “Dead Man’s Chest”, I think Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) is fantastic villain and the CGI used to bring him to life is nothing short of incredible and nigh-on photoreal. The crew of the Flying Dutchman are very well designed too, with all sorts of weird ‘n’ wonderful fish/man hybrids on display. In terms of good scenes, there’s the highly impressive Kraken attacks and there’s my personal favourite, the three-way sword fight between Jack, Norrington and Will. It’s superbly choreographed and brilliantly fun. Having the fight continue on a rollaway water wheel is a stroke of genius too. However, even in this great scene there are some irritations. Firstly, when the fight starts on the beach, Elizabeth is incredibly annoying, shrieking about pirates and fighting like there was a danger of somebody giving a flying fuck. I also hate the bit where Pintel and Ragetti (the pirate henchmen from the original) have to explain why the three men are fighting over the chest. If you have to dedicate time to characters explaining why other characters are acting as they are during a fight sequence, you’ve got big problems.

“Life is cruel. Why should the afterlife be any different?”


What all of this boils down to is that “Dead Man’s Chest” isn’t a patch on “Curse of the Black Pearl”. It somehow lost its sense of fun in its criminally long runtime. It’s a good film, but after the very decent first one I expected more. Much like Jack Sparrow, the film doesn’t seem to know what it wants.

Pirates of the Caribbean:The Curse of the Black Pearl

As it’s Boxing Day and I have nothing better to do, I decided to go for a stroll in Pirate country and review the “Pirates of the Caribbean” trilogy over the next few days. So, let’s start at square one, shall we?

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

There are many things that baffle me about the movie business. Questions like “Why do people think Tim Burton is a versatile director?” and “Why doesn’t Brendan Fraser seem to age?” (Jesus, this blog has been pretty Fraser-heavy of late, hasn’t it?) consistently plague me. One of the biggest questions in my mind is “How the living hell did Disney make a multi-million dollar franchise using a theme park ride as its inspiration?” It honestly bewilders me. I mean, I’ve seen fantastic novels adapted for the screen and die on their arse, but making a successful, not to mention good, film from an old (and fairly underwhelming) Disney World ride is beyond me.

“Welcome to the Caribbean, love”

The plot follows blacksmith and swordmaker Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his love for Governor Swann’s (Jonathan Pryce) daughter, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley). After a while, the crew of the legendary and feared Black Pearl, led by Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) pillage Port Royal and kidnap Elizabeth. It’s up to Will and imprisoned, eccentric pirate *Captain* Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) to save her. Throw into the mix Commodore Norrington (Jack Davenport) and you’ve got yourself a good old-fashioned swashbuckling tale on your hands. As stories go, you can’t get more classic than this. Yes, it’s the whole “damsel in distress” thing, but with a few key differences. Firstly, Elizabeth isn’t the swooning maiden who can’t do anything for herself. She’s pretty tough and resourceful- shockingly still a rarity these days. Secondly, our hero, Will ,is a bit useless. Sure, he can swordfight and the like, but he doesn’t do much else.

I can’t possibly review this film without mentioning Johnny Depp’s outstanding performance as Jack Sparrow. He’s brilliant and steals every single scene he’s in. There’s not much point in carrying on describing him because chances are you know who he is, watched the film a hojillion times and have written slash fiction about him paired with Edward Cullen from “Twilight”. Unless you’re a guy- in which case you’ve been practising your Jack Sparrow impression to get those oddly sexy, geeky girls to like you because you’ve heard they do the weird stuff in the bedroom.I’m guessing here, but I’d be damned surprised if I was completely wrong.

Before I continue about how good this film is, let’s get the bad stuff out of the way. Why is Orlando Bloom in this film? The guy really can’t act to save his life. Don’t get me wrong- I like him, but I get the feeling they should have cast someone better. Jesus, even a weasel in a wig could have done better than ol’ Orly. He really is the new Keanu Reeves. He just seems to be in pain everytime he has to deliver a line. Most excruciating moment? Got to be the “Goodbye…Elizabeth” line. I honestly have to look away for that part. It’s embarrassing. I’m sure the Bloom fans among you will retort with “Well, you couldn’t do any better” and you’ll be right. I wouldn’t be able to do better. Then again- I’m not a paid, professional actor. I do realise that by this logic, I’ve said that a weasel in a wig could out-act me. Try not to think about it too much.

Story-wise, I have a problem with Barbossa’s crew. Why are they considered so bad, when all they want to do is lift a curse and become human again? Okay, they kill a bunch of people in Port Royal-but that’s about it. They’re not trying to take over the World or anything-they want to become mortal, eat and drink. Doesn’t seem that bastardly to me, in fact-it seems downright reasonable.

I suppose my only other qualm is with one line. “Just one line?!” I hear you cry. “Why bother mentioning it? Surely that is below even your standard of nit-pickery?” Well, nothing is below my standard of nit-pickery. If something annoys me, no matter how minute, you can bet your last Rolo that I’ll kick up a fuss. Why? Well, be it a clunky line or even a slightly-off musical cue, it all adds up to something that takes me out of the movie experience. Maybe my standards are too high or something (they’re not). Plus, as I said before, I am nit-picking here. So, what’s the offending line? Well, it’s Elizabeth’s line of “You like pain? Try wearing a corset!”. It’s a horrible, horrible line. I’m guessing one of the writers’ girlfriends pitched it and he begrudgingly put it in because if he did, she promised she’d do the weird stuff in the bedroom. Well, I hope you’re happy Mr. Writer…. she’s cheating on you, by the way.

” I think we’ve all arrived at a very special place. Spiritually, ecumenically… grammatically”

Nano nit-pickery aside, the rest of the film is great. The action is brilliant and the special effects are genuinely special. I love the moonlight sequence where the pirates reveal their true forms. Just the right amount of scary to be interesting, but not enough to scar the wee bairns watching. Actually nearly all the scenes are good, be it the huge action sequences (my favourite being the climactic showdown between Jack and Barbossa- superbly done) or the quieter, dialogue driven scenes (the beach scene with Jack and Elizabeth is genius). It’s very funny too, with some endlessly quotable lines, mostly delivered by the Cap’n himself. I could go on, but let me just leave you with this- it’s simply a fantastic family film.