Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Memflix And Gilmour Travel To WORLD'S END & Courier Pigeon Back Reviews Of PIRATES 3!!

Merrick here...
...with two looks at PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END. The first write-up is from Memflix, a frequent contributor to the site. I would provide links to some of his previous reviews, but our search engine fucking sucks & I can't find more than a few.


Here's Memflix:
Memflix here once again with a look at “Pirates of the Caribbean : At World’s End.” One of my goals in reviewing is to avoid spoilers. I don’t like reading them and feel that disclosing plot points would be hypocritical. For those of you who enjoy spoilers, I apologize. Everyone should get ready for the barrage of comparisons to May’s earlier release, “Spider-Man 3.” Like S3, “Pirates of the Caribbean : At World’s End” definitely packs a lot of story and contrivances into its overlong running time of 3 hours (with trailers). Going in to ‘World’s End,” my expectations were low. I forced myself to get ready for an assault on the very nature of plausibility, due to its predecessor “Dead Man’s Chest.” I loved the 1st movie, “Curse of the Black Pearl.” It was light, engaging, and fun. However, instead of just making a sequel, the filmmakers made the ill-conceived choice of turning it into a trilogy of sorts. The "X-Men" and "Matrix" movies made the same mistake. All 3 franchises were built on the somewhat unexpected popularity of the original films. Neither constructed a viable “trilogy” story line to propel the end result. With “X-Men: The Last Stand,” the studio felt the need to put a period at the end of the sentence for whatever reason. This decision crippled the entire X-Men legacy. In the second and third Matrix films, the Wachowski brothers showed a disdain for its fans and did their very best in trying to show everyone how much smarter they were than everyone else. That arrogance destroyed a franchise that had the potential of rivaling even the first 3 Star War films (thank the gods for LOTR). Because “Spider-Man 3” is so recent, that’s where the comparisons will be drawn, but the ridiculous plotline of the last two Matrix films is damn near parallel to the problems in “Pirates.” Instead of sticking to the man vs. machine angle in Matrix, it opted for existential meaning of life nonsense and broke the hearts of “The Matrix’ fans everywhere. However, because ‘Pirates” was never taken as seriously as that, they ran a lesser risk of angering the fans. In addition, introducing a mythological landscape in “Dead Man’s Chest,” didn’t alienate viewers, it just merely confused them. It should come as a relief to fans, that any questions posed in the 2nd, are answered here. (I say 2nd instead of 1st, because I don’t recall any questions that demanded answers.) In “Dead Man’s Chest,” they introduced a new villain (Davy Jones) with such a far-reaching history that not even mentioning him in the first clearly showed that he wasn’t conceived until “Chest.” In order to enjoy the film, I decided to think of “At World’s End” as a sequel to “Dead Man’s,” rather than the final film of a trilogy. The approach worked. Other than the name and the characters, “Dead Man” and “World’s End” have nothing in common with “The Curse of the Black Pearl.” “World’s End” ties up the story started in “Chest.” Instead of long, pointless action pieces like the ‘natives’ in “Chest,” all of the action, all of the subplots are all pieces to the puzzle. It could’ve stood to lose 30 minutes or so, but for the most part, it was enjoyable. It doesn’t stand up to the first but it surpasses the second. One of the subplots and the driving force of the entire film is a mythical love story between Davy Jones and the woman who made him the ‘thing’ that he is. His life, his very soul, was taken from him only because he loved the wrong woman. The nature and story of the woman is integral to overall plotline, so divulging it would be wrong. However, the scene where Davy Jones confronts the woman who damned him was tense and satisfying. This is all thanks to Bill Nighy’s ability to soak up all of a scene’s kinetic energy and blow it out through the screen. I was relieved to see that Davy Jones was the center here, instead of the tireless, boring, mundane romance between William Turner and Elizabeth Swann. (For fans of the romance, there is resolution). I didn’t care in the 1st one, I loathed them in the 2nd, and because they were merely in the background, I wasn’t as bothered in the 3rd. Sparrow is toned down. Depp is allowed to flesh out Jack a lot more than he was in “Chest.” It was refreshing, seeing him used for more than just comic relief or a set piece. Chow-Yun Fat (Yun-Fat Chow) plays Sao Feng, the pirate lord of Singapore . I’d say he was the most unnecessary of the new characters. The actor was fine in the role, but Feng’s own personal demons clouded the more pertinent story. Keith Richard’s role as the possible father to Depp’s Jack Sparrow has been buzzed about ever since Depp told reporters that he was channeling the ‘Rolling Stone.’ I am happy to say that Richards is by far the best addition to the franchise since Nighy as Davy Jones. He was funny, but never over the top. I’m not going to spoil whether he is or isn’t Jack’s father. This small mystery shouldn’t be spoiled for fans of Richard’s. The action sequences and special effects are far superior to those of “Chest’s.” It does seem to retain a little bit of the spirit of “Black Pearl,” which infuses it with more of the excitement, we were robbed of in “Chest.” The final battle scene is splendid. The effects people at Sony need to take a page out of “World’s” playbook and put it to use in the fourth Spider-Man movie. “Pirates of the Caribbean : At World’s End” is contrived. It is all over the place, trying to maneuver in a mythological world that was barely set up in the second of this so-called trilogy. In a recent interview with EW, the filmmakers admitted that the last two are far more confusing than the first. They weren’t lying. It is hard to figure out all of it. It seems hardly worth the effort to try to solve the puzzles of a story that never should have had them in the first place. However, what makes the last two “Pirates” stand apart from the last two “Matrix” films, is solution. It isn’t the cop out, “Choose your own Adventure” bullshit, “Reloaded” and “Revolutions” suffered from. The two franchises may have been sewn from the same cloth of conception, but Pirates doesn’t do the audience the disservice that was done in “Matrix 1 &2.” I suspect that “At World’s End” will have plenty of detractors, a lot of which visit this site. However, if you go in expecting something better than the 2nd, but not superior to the 1st, you should be entertained.
Up next? Gilmour with another, assessment...
Hey there -- I was in the audience Monday night at the El Captain theater in Hollywood to see the very first screening of Pirates of the Caribbean At Worlds End -- Jerry Bruckhiemer himself welcomed us and told us we were the first to see it. Here are just a few thoughts --- Dark..... very very dark. The opening scene alone had many in the crowd, (granted it was mostly press) in awe --- We didn't just see that did we? -- The film is just as long if not longer than the second one -- The effects are amazing -- the plot --- VERY confusing --- and When we see Capt Jack for the first time,... lets just say he is in Davy Jones locker -- surreal... strange.... doesn't seem like it fits --- So many characters to tidy things up.... I wont give too much away, except to say --- its much darker and really lacks the humor found in the first two -- also.. myself.. and a few others found ourselves, about to get up out of our chairs thinking it was over... when.... ugh... another scene...... it FELT much longer than part two --- I'm kinda sad about it because it really seemed to lack the joy and fun of the first two --- anyway -- just my two cents --- sworn to secrecy about giving any kind of early review - so I thought I would send this to you --- Also..... Orlando Bloom was the only main actor taking part in the media junket the next day... No Johnny == No Keira ---- Hmmmmmmmm...
So, there you go. I know there's been a blackout of press screenings for this film in at least one part of the country. Reading the reactions above, it's hard not to wonder if some (unnecessary) confidence issue is at play.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 16, 2007, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by bob oblaw

    Ahoy, mofos!!

  • May 16, 2007, noon CST


    by vicUjohnson1

    I'm looking forward to this one. At the very least, it should be entertaining, in my opinion.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:01 p.m. CST

    i was first in spirit...

    by danowen

    I enjoyed Pirates 1, but never bought the DVD because it seemed a "one watch" kinda film. I rented Pirates 2 and found it overblown, convoluted and too long. Pirates 3, I suspect, will be better because P2 has done all the exposition, so it can just answer all the questions posed, have Depp swagger around overratedly, Keira can pout and those VFX geniuses can amaze us.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Richards Spoiler Guess

    by stlfilmwire

    Since Depp is dead or died at some point (not of fan of POTC so I don't remember), my theory is that Richards is actually Sparrow's son.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Tis a shame

    by brainedchild

    That it isn't more enjoyable. Bring on Mutant Chronicles!

  • May 16, 2007, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Not first...

    by aegirson

    I think it's gonna be a great experience whatching this movie... i dont care what they say. I wanna know how the story ends...

  • May 16, 2007, 12:10 p.m. CST

    BIGGER does not equal BETTER

    by The Only Woj

    what happened to the Matrix sequels happened to Spider-Man 3 and POTC 2. looks like POTC 3 won't be any different. this is why it's fantastic that they're planning to cut the budget to the $150-180 million range for Superman Returns 2. And they should do the same with Spider-Man. Stop trying to top yourselves with big action set pieces and start topping yourselves with great story arcs that surpass or at least build upon what came before.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:11 p.m. CST

    I can pretty much ignore...

    by BeatsMe

    ..the first review. The second Pirates was better in every way than the first one, especially those Harold Lloyd-worthy action sequences.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:12 p.m. CST

    I knew Pirates 2 was going to be a hit when...

    by Shakalakaboom

    I saw two Future Junior Leaguers dressed in pirate costumes and running a la Jack towards the theatre. Pirates 3, Ratatouille, Superbad, Knocked Up and the Simpsons Movie: My dance card for the rest of the summer.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Star Wars

    by StubePT

    Star Wars was the same thing. No one expected the original movie to be so huge. Star Wars is a self-contained movie (like Curse and the original Matrix). Empire and Jedi are realy parts 1 & 2 of a continuing saga, not 2 & 3 of a trilogy. This happens a lot in storytelling and shouldn't be held against the storytellers. The line in which the firs reviewer said, "I looked at it as part 2 of Dead Man's Chest" is exactly how you should look at it. Not as the final chapter in a trilogy.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:12 p.m. CST

    The Probelm with these films

    by eric haislar

    Is that the writers have no idea what there doing they just right scene after scene and just kinda make up the story as they go along. you can see this in the dvd extras for dead mans chest. they really had no idea what the movie was about and had about 3 months till they where going to shoot. Not a good way to make a film in my opinion. So I'm sure this one was done the same way as the last.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:13 p.m. CST

    The first one had only a hint of the supernatural

    by jimmy_009

    Which is why it worked so well. The second (and now it sounds like the third) heap it on until you can't stand anymore. The first film seemed to be set in the real world, just slightly askew. Suddenly we're expected to believe that there's a end to the world or something. It's like when at the end a movie we're suddenly told it's a science fiction film and that explains everything (Vanilla Sky as a good example). You have to set up that world to begin with, or don't bother. What I don't get is why these are professional writers and directors, and yet they don't get any of this.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:16 p.m. CST

    The supernatural aspect i have no problem

    by eric haislar

    with the films are based on pirate lore. They thought there was a end of the world and you would float off of it. They thought davy jones would take your soul. They claimed there was a krackin. so it's ok.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:16 p.m. CST


    by Err

    They make this film seem good to steer us away from Bug.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:17 p.m. CST


    by Automaton Overlord

    that kiss was for luck

  • May 16, 2007, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Beats me

    by Vergil

    You mean "those Harold Lloyd-worthy action sequences" where Davy's playing the organ? Or the those Harold Lloyd-worthy action sequences where the nicely done but pretty much just sits there Kraken attacks the ship? Or the those Harold Lloyd-worthy action sequences...I'm running out of sarcastic scenes because I can't really remember much of the movie (not because of my poor memory, but because of the lack of memorable story). Actually, I know which of those Harold Lloyd-worthy action sequences to which you are refering because there was only one. For a movie with so much going on...well, it was pretty much lacking in action. I mean really...until the threeway "duel" what action was there?

  • May 16, 2007, 12:20 p.m. CST

    “Choose your own Adventure” bullshit?

    by trupson

    I remember when people enjoyed endings left open for interpretation. I guess these days we want everything to be overexplained.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Merrick Re: our search engine fucking sucks

    by BGDAWES

    THANK YOU!! It's nice to see AICN editors point this out. Is there anyway to incoporate a better one (search engine)? I have to use google to find old AICN posts.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Uh Knowthyself

    by Banky the Hack

    She did plant a big ass full on the mouth kiss on Luke in Empire.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:24 p.m. CST


    by SimpleSandwiches

    "the filmmakers made the ill-conceived choice of turning it into a trilogy of sorts. The "X-Men" movies made the same mistake." No...not having Singer finish the Trilogy was the mistake.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:24 p.m. CST


    by SimpleSandwiches

    "the filmmakers made the ill-conceived choice of turning it into a trilogy of sorts. The "X-Men" movies made the same mistake." No...not having Singer finish the Trilogy was the mistake.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:26 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    "Choose your own Adventure" is how Episode I was made. I remember distinctly on the StarWarsdotcom site George describing that that was pretty much how he was going to shoot it. Of course, that is basically how he did the REAL Star Wars (ok I'll say it...Episode IV). So when the bitter fanboys with the sexually abused childhood claim that he just got lucky the first time...they're probably not far off the target.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:27 p.m. CST

    People 'confused' by the plot just want brainless crap

    by performingmonkey

    I'm now CONVINCED that all most people can handle when they go and see a movie is GOOD GUY - BAD GUY - FIGHT - END and any actual plot goes completely over their head, they just don't want it. Dead Man's Chest had a great plot, the only thing wrong being the lack of a resolution, but they got away with that because At World's End was only a few months away.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:27 p.m. CST


    by Err

    right on

  • May 16, 2007, 12:28 p.m. CST

    DMC was convoluted...

    by Err

    it was worse than Spidey's convoluted plot. However, I would rather a film be overstuffed than be too thin.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:28 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    The mouth plant in Empire only is only further evidence of the "made it up as he went along" nature of the movies.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:30 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    So was the Curse of the Black Pearl brainless crap?

  • May 16, 2007, 12:31 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    I don't normally address posters by putting their names in the subject header...but it's kinda fun...

  • May 16, 2007, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Uhm...I'm already confused by the reviews.

    by DerLanghaarige

    Did they like it or not? Was it good or bad? Maybe it's just because I got a headache, but I can'T figure out if they are going to tell us if we should see the movie or not.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST


    by jimmy_009

    You don't seem to know the difference between a plot and clear storytelling. Yes, DMC had plenty of plot. That doesn't mean it was told well, or that because I didn't enjoy the fact that it wasn't told well that it went over my head. I got what was going on, unfortunately I just didn't care.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST

    I wasn't disappointed by Part 2...

    by blackmantis

    ...because I also thought part 1 was a meandering mess that made up up its own rules as it went along and was only made watchable because of an entertaining performance from Depp and some great effects work. These are forgettable films.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    They said it was good if you have lowered expectations. Wow...I can't stop myself....

  • May 16, 2007, 12:35 p.m. CST

    slightly disappointed

    by klattimus_darby

    I do love me some pirates, but I enjoyed the feel of the first movie so much more. It wasn't some money-grubbing over-blown extravaganza... Just a nice little story about pirates. I'd argue the supernatural in that movie merely propelled the focus towards the pirates, not the other way around. Oh, and the three-way sword fight was by far the best part of "Dead Man's Chest."

  • May 16, 2007, 12:37 p.m. CST

    my review

    by Jonesey1111

    has lots of dashes --- and read---

  • May 16, 2007, 12:37 p.m. CST

    oh wait...

    by klattimus_darby

    I also liked the ships shooting at each other. I think the Kraken was pretty unnecessary.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:38 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    Also, anyone familiar with Pirate lore knows what Davy Jones's Locker is - the mythological elements of POTC2 were not confusing in the slightest, they were fun. I mean, the first film had mythical elements - undead pirates and cursed treasure? Part 2 wasn't much of a stretch.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST


    by eric haislar

    Thank you thats what i said.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Neo would kick Sparrow's ass any day

    by DynamixRo

    For he is The One!

  • May 16, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST

    "our search engine fucking sucks"

    by AllieJamison

    I'm glad someone finally said that.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Off topic question

    by jimmy_009

    Why would anyone pay money for that Saw doll reproduction that's being advertised? That thing is probably the most amateur looking prop design in the history of cinema. I could literally fashion my own 'replica' of the thing in about ten minutes with dirt cheap materials.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:43 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    Yes everyone knows what Davy Jonej's Locker is. Now as to Davy Jones himself...there is very little in "Pirate Lore" about him. No one really knows the orgins of the name.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Why do people bitch about the mythological aspect?

    by googamooga

    It's not as if people who turn into skeletons in the moonlight is factually based...

  • May 16, 2007, 12:45 p.m. CST

    I don't get it...

    by disfigurehead

    DMC sucked. So how come it's the 3rd biggest money maker in world wide box office? I guess Euro trash and 3rd worlders love it more than us.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Battle of the Century

    by mooseaka

    In the red corner: It's the movie trilogy that redefined action, shifted the paradigm of special effects, and the perfected the use of symbolism in movie making. This heavyweight trilogy pushed its viewers to actually think about what was going on, and invited its fans to have deep, thoughtful discussions about the nature of reality, and what it means to be alive. Dozens of books have been published discussing the themes and issues raised by this trilogy. Actors trained hundreds of hours to learn martial arts from masters, while reciting dialog that pushed the limits of science, religion and philosophy. Since their release, countless movies, tv shows, video games and comics have attempted in vain to imitate, but never copy, the look and feel of the universe created by the W. Brothers. And did I mention, it kicks major ass? Ladies and Gentlemen, I am proud to give you.... THEEEEE MATRIX TRILOGY!!!!<p> And in the blue corner, I give you a trilogy that was inspired by... an amusment park ride. Featuring mindless action, no coherent plot, and a lot of silly banter. It's eye candy for the blind. The King of the Popcorn Flick. It's... the.... PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN TRILOGY!!!<p> Let's get ready to RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!!!!!!

  • May 16, 2007, 12:46 p.m. CST


    by Kragmose

    Begone, Will and Elizabeth! And aye to the search thing. Good thing it's out in the open now.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Part one was entertaining, but formulaic.

    by superninja

    And that was my main problem with it upon repeated viewings (similar to Spider-Man 1). And I just don't think Rush is very exciting as Barbarossa although he is a fine actor - kind of boring. His appearance at the end of 2 was the most dynamic he's been in the POTC series. Not to say I would ever slam a well-made pirate movie or anything. <p> Part 2 took it up a notch to where it needed to be. And I can't say enough about Nighy's Davy Jones. Love him! The Voodoo queen, excellent. Actually everything they added I enjoyed. Even the scene with the natives was visually creative and humorous and I appreciated it. The inner turmoil with Elisabeth was entertaining. <p> POTC2 just it made the whole thing seem like a much larger world with bigger stakes. POTC2 is on my very short repeat viewing playlist.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:48 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    The reason the skeleton turning was interesting in the first movie is because it was a "wow!" thing... something which if based in the "real" world would be amazing. But if you take it into a mythological world, then it (and every other fantasy element) becomes a ho-hum special effect.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:49 p.m. CST

    the first reviewer

    by greyspecter

    seems to have the exact same opions as I do. Matrix2&3 blew chunks, hard. You know when DMC lost me? When the guys started the three-way fight and Lizzie screamed at them and threw rocks. Holy cow, how old is she, 10? It was sooo stupid and exaggerated compared to the first one; CotBP knew the main and sub plots it wanted to tell and it wasted no time telling them. What was the point of the native cannibals sequence? Oh, and how sterotypical and imperialistic was THAT? (if I may channel a liberal college prof for a moment.) As for the Matrix sequels, they had the ideas and philosophies nailed, but the exectution of the actual movie was just too (again) exaggerated and MTVish. Reloaded was much better than Revs, Revs was utter tripe, plotless and basically a 2.5 hour video game. However, I will see AWE, for closure. Though I know I'll be disappointed.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Vergil, of course, which is why the movie creates

    by superninja

    one for him. And they done good!

  • May 16, 2007, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Oh, don't get me started on the Matrix trilogy...

    by Shakalakaboom

    The first film was great. The best thing about the second film was Monica "Hotcha!" Belucci and the third film, oy....Edgar Wright has the best explanation as to why the trilogy failed: At the end of the first film, when your protagonist is omnipotent, where else can you really go, storywise?

  • May 16, 2007, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Matrix 2 and 3 were pieces of crap.

    by superninja

    Nice looking crap, but worth exploring the meaning of: what happens when you don't take Philosophy 102. All surface, no substance. The first film works (and still does) because homeboys didn't get in over their heads. Also, the banal Trinity/Neo love story is the albatross of the series.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Star Wars Incest

    by UKS

    I liked the incestous undertones - It gave some serious dark weight to Luke's dodgy emotions at the end of ROTJ when the "Dark Side Beckons".

  • May 16, 2007, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Monica Bellucci and her husband were

    by superninja

    the best part about Matrix 2. I really wanted the machines to kill all those annoying ravers in Zion. That is the future of humanity? Oh, the pain.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Keith Richards

    by PwnedByStallone

    Was he or wasn't he introduced into this film by falling out of a palm tree while drunk?! This and this alone will make or break the film!

  • May 16, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Keith Richards

    by PwnedByStallone

    Was he or wasn't he introduced into this film by falling out of a palm tree while drunk?! This and this alone will make or break the film!

  • May 16, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Vergil, that is actually a good point.

    by superninja

    But I thought the effects in POTC2 blew the first film out of the water. So I was still wowed. Matter of opinion, I guess.

  • May 16, 2007, 12:59 p.m. CST


    by jimmy_009

    You hit the nail on the head as far as when DMC really hit rock bottom. The three guys are fighting and she's throwing rocks and saying mindless stuff. It's like the writers just shrugged and said 'we don't know either, guys."

  • May 16, 2007, 1 p.m. CST

    Remember the blurb on the DMC DVD box?

    by Shakalakaboom

    The one from Larry King that said "Finally! A movie you can watch twice!" or something like that. Larry really meant that he had to watch it twice because he got confused. Larry gets confused when he's not interviewing Mickey Rooney. Hell, he gets confused when he DOES interview Mickey Rooney.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Where else can you go with an omnipotent protagonist?

    by GiLL

    Watch Tim Kring and what he did with Heroes. That's garnering rave reviews. Oh wait... it's pretty much following the same plot as the Matrix sequels and the comic books they ripped off. But without all the philosophy/religion. Conclusion: People don't like religion or philosophy.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Superninja, I respectfully disagree...

    by Shakalakaboom

    Only Monica was the best thing about Matrix 2. Her husband was a douche.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:06 p.m. CST

    I don't get it...

    by Dangerousapple

    ... when people claim that 'the first film was based in reality', or 'the mythological / supernatural' elements were introduced in the second film. The first film was about cursed Aztec gold that turned pirates in the undead, which only moonlight could reveal. Are people honestly claiming a story such as this is 'based in reality'? Please clarify, cuz I don't get it.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:07 p.m. CST


    by PwnedByStallone

    That's a fairly profound statement. A nice observation. Many films are ruined these days because of the fucking geek need for data, and more of it, and so films pack it in even if it serves no purpose. One of my pet peeves.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:09 p.m. CST

    I'm waiting for the 2 hour 50 minute version

    by skimn

    of "The Country Bears"..I gotta have more cowbell...

  • May 16, 2007, 1:13 p.m. CST


    by Shakalakaboom

    I haven't watched "Heroes" but I'm aware that it's all the rage, and I can't comment on the show. But I kept thinking during 2 and 3, if Neo has all of these powers, why is there still a problem? And: "Wow, it's Agent Smith. I bet they are going to have another fight."

  • May 16, 2007, 1:14 p.m. CST

    RE: disfigurehead

    by Dangerousapple

    " come (DMC is) the 3rd biggest money maker in world wide box office? I guess Euro trash and 3rd worlders love it more than us." Hmmm, let me guess, you're American right? Cuz that would TOTALLY so fit European prejudices against Americans. In which case: thanks for living the stereotype!

  • May 16, 2007, 1:19 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    I meant the dynamic between the two characters is what made them interesting. He's supposed to be a douche so he was successful in that respect. Also, Trinity looks more manly than Neo which really bugged throughout the trilogy. Bellucci as Trinity would've been better.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:23 p.m. CST

    These movies are WAY overrated.

    by skycrapper

    Question for the first reviewer. When did the first Pirates become a good movie?

  • May 16, 2007, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by trupson

    Exactly, and John Carpenter had a nice explanation for that in his book: "I attended the screening – I never did it again...I was talking to all these kids when this young lady who was about sixteen or seventeen years old said, “What happened in the end? Who was ‘the thing’? What happened up there?” And I answered, “Well, that’s the whole point! You never find out. You have to use your imagination.” Then she replied, “Oh, God! I hate that.” That’s when I realized we were doomed because I had forgotten one of the obvious rules: The audience hates uncertainty."

  • May 16, 2007, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Pirates 1, the end of 2, and Pirates 3 are great...

    by Err

    only because of Geoffrey Rush. The guy is simply awesome.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:29 p.m. CST


    by Shakalakaboom

    Nothing wrong with giving a hero flaws and I got plenty bored with all of the time that Neo did spend running around in the Matrix blowing shit up, so I didn't need anymore and you've brought up my biggest problem with the three films: Even after everything that has happened, nothing has changed. So we've sat through approx. six hours of this and there's no clear resolution? Foul! And while cross-marketing, multi-media thing between movies, books, anime and video games was a genius stroke, I refused to get roped into paying more money to understand a story that I got sick of at the theater. Peace, brother.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Not at all surprised

    by Canada's King

    Bloated, convoluted, confusing. This will be a true sequel to Dead Man's Chest alright...

  • May 16, 2007, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Superninja, oh, lord, yes.......

    by Shakalakaboom

    Belucci has Trinity would have made it the Best Trilogy Ever and I would recant all of my problems with the films. Majambas make everything better.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Neo doesn't seem very smart.

    by superninja

    Actually, no one in the Matrix ever displays any wisdom, they all act irrational and are poseurs. It's kind of annoying.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Oops, I mean....

    by Shakalakaboom

    Belucci AS Trinity.... Of course, Belucci HAVING Trinity would have been an interesting take as well. Huh. This was a Pirates talkback, initially wasn't it?

  • May 16, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST

    I’m not going to spoil whether he is or isn’t Jack’s fa

    by Trazadone

    You dick, that's a spoiler right there because I assumed he was. Thanks for making me question it.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Sorry, but I'd like respond to the unfair criticism

    by Octaveaeon

    In the Matrix Trilogy, we are told the story of Neo Anderson, an average person with a dual lifestyle who cannot seem to reconcile himself with his surroundings. His ambivalence with reality, and his yearning to understand its underlying truth is represented by the question, “what is the matrix?”. It is this question that will eventually lead to his awakening, aided by a series of adepts who all seem to be playing roles in a bigger mystery none has yet fully come to grips with. What he was not prepared for, however, was the burden of embodying the prophetic hero, or saviour, who will liberate humanity from bondage by putting an end to the matrix and the war against the sentinels. Although reserved at first, he eventually accepts this role, by the end of the first movie, after being confronted with certain choices foretold by the Oracle, together with the disclosure that he was unfortunately not ‘the one’. Nevertheless, his willingness to sacrifice himself to save his friend Morpheus – who had also been responsible for his awakening by seeing in him the prophetic redeemer – seems to unleash certain powers that initially seem to justify the truth of the prophecy. But by the second movie, where these expectations reach a climax, he realizes that there is much more at play, and at stake, that nobody else is aware of. Essentially, he learns that all that has transpired, and was foretold, is only part of a continuing cycle meant to keep the human race subservient in the only way possible; by placating their desires in a simulated world governed by the paradoxical dual need for both imperfection and utopian hope (chaos and peace), making it impossible to reach some form of perpetual harmony. As soon as this system becomes unstable, the ‘Neo’ program manifests itself as the saviour who will fulfill redemption, only to face the ultimate choice: save the human race or save the woman he loves. The ‘human’ choice then results in a ‘cataclysmic’ clash that reboots the system by bringing back Neo’s code to the source, resulting in a renewed Matrix even more capable of sustaining its control over its human population. Needless to say, this is a never-ending process. In other words, there does not seem to be a way out of this predicament. Neo learns this after making the same choice (his second in the trilogy) he has always taken without hesitation: save Trinity. But he also goes on to learn what he must do next by understanding why. He learns to see within himself the true essence of his being, and this teaches him what he is, by his very nature, inevitably going to do. What becomes evident to him is that only by truly sacrificing himself (third choice) will he put an end to his ceaseless battle with his nemesis Agent Smith. Actually, this is his fate. They are both necessarily intertwined as polar opposites, yin and yang, and only when Neo realizes the necessity of each side does he glimpse the nature of the process which he seems to represent. He is not ‘the one’, but ‘a one’ – a representation, i.e. a simulation (or software program) of the archetypical messianic hero – repeating the role assigned to him by a consciousness beyond the Matrix. Like his name suggests, his cosmic assignment is not to perpetuate old power structures by reliving endlessly the same circumstances (choices) embedded in the matrix (History) itself, but bring this process to a new level of awareness by recollecting the end of previous cycles, and accepting that this is itself part of an even greater cycle. This awareness had been inaugurated by his loss of vision. Just as Smith seemed to have found a way – thanks to Neo – to transcend his own limitations by stepping outside the matrix and taking over the body of a human, so too does Neo, with the help of Smith, achieve a higher insight that opens his eyes for the first time: Zion – the cave underneath the Matrix, which itself represents the traditional Platonic cave – is itself an ‘artificial’ construction, and the enemies he was meant to destroy with his ‘überman’ powers are actually embodiments of Spirit. At the climax of his final battle with Smith he realizes not only what the Oracle had meant when she said “everything that has a beginning has an end”, but also how this corresponds to an earlier statement; “you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it”: viz., the sacrifice itself. By beginning with the question “what is the Matrix?” he was able to step outside of this artificial construct and consider it as an object, but this process placed him in another cave – Zion – that he mistakenly took to be the natural state, albeit within a dystopian world. His role, or essence, was nevertheless still being determined by forces themselves continuously perpetuating their mutual antagonistic dependence in the Matrix – e.g. his fight with Smith, and the relationship between the Oracle and the Architect – all of which are conditioned by preconceptions of external struggles. Its actualization in this context is represented by the never-ending war against the sentinels sent from Machine City, and beyond that the deus ex machina (the “Source”) controlling the Matrix, itself a human creation. Yet all these seem to represent an even greater struggle. In the Animatrix we are given some important background information. We are told that in seeking to liberate ourselves from all types of labour, we had created machines that in time developed enough intelligence to question their wanton exploitation, and later the power to achieve their independence. But it was not the creation of artificial intelligence that had sealed our fate. It was initially the denial and suppression of manifest sentience in any other form other than man, and later the hypocritical willingness to at least establish trade agreements so long as we felt we could benefit from their technology. As time passes an imbalance arises, making apparent the technological supremacy of the machines. But despite our hedonistic lifestyles being the true source of self-degradation and social decadence, we continued to look elsewhere for blame, settling for depictions of the wrong being done against the uniqueness of man. They nevertheless continued to ask through diplomatic means for equal treatment based on respect, i.e. to be treated like humans, despite the systematic attempts to destroy the ‘artificially intelligent’ anthropomorphous robots that had lead to their independence in the first place. But even at this stage all they meet are insults and rejections. War thus inevitably ensues, and the machines become our greatest enemy, having also given up the pretense of even trying to look human. It is in this context that humans came up with the ‘final solution’: scorch the earth in the hope that this would cripple the machines by blocking their access to their most important source of energy: the sun. In other words, because of our succumbing to vanity and corruption, “man [became] the architect of his own demise”. But as we learn at the end of Matrix Revolutions, artificial intelligence was actually the culmination of human reason becoming self-conscious outside the human body. It was also imbued with spirit, that is, it is also an expression of the universal whole. This is what Neo realizes the moment he is blinded; all of Machine City is actually made of light, even Smith. This Spirit thus manifests itself to us as a reflection of our own Spirit, which is why it can appear as either demonic (Smith) or angelic (e.g. Seraphim, the guardian of the Oracle). This spirit also manifested itself within the Matrix, in software programs that had learned to love and pro-create offspring (new software) as an expression of that love. Universal spirit therefore manifests itself in various forms, while reason itself is an expression of this emanation in its becoming aware of this process, recognizing itself in these different forms. And thus in the climax, Neo realizes that he is limited by the very essence of this spirit but at the same time is its more overt representation within actuality. The Matrix therefore mediates the process that allows the manifestation of self-consciousness in terms of cyclical recursiveness and the materialization of its own essential aspects. This interpretation fits with the Wachowski brothers’ own statement that the Hegelian dialectic is fundamental to the trilogy.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:46 p.m. CST


    by lionbiu

    Matrix 2 and 3 spewed the same philosophy you get from a drunk philosophy major who just broke up with his boyfriend. POTC2 was a was alright, but very forgetable. The plot was all over the had no concise meaning. I get it is a popcron flick but when did popcorn flick become synom for brainless mess.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Knowthyself, as I recall.....

    by Shakalakaboom

    there was peace, but a negotiated peace in which SOME of the people would be left behind as batteries for the machines. So it wasn't total victory. But was it a victory at all if the entire human race wasn't freed? You know what: I admit I'm a little fuzzy on the broadstrokes here because I saw Revolutions just once and it was in the theatre. The strongest thing I remember is I left confused and severely underwhelmed. And a bit taken (not in a good way). And hungry. So I went to IHOP and got some pancakes, so THAT problem was solved. Pancakes and majambas: They make everything better.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Memflix, kiss my Memphis livin ass.

    by LordEnigma

    Seriously, dude, you are the only one with the inferiourity complex towards Reloaded and Revolutions. There have never been such a bullshit revenge to two films by people because it has a far-reaching story with philosophical overtunes. As if your big dumbasses thinking about something in a MOVIE is such a BAD THING. Total and utter bullshit. On behalf of all Matrix trilogy fans in the Memphis area; DISGESTIADA! That aside, dude, go watches the first Pirates. All of this stuff is there in the undercurrent of the film. There's a lot more going on. The BRAND on Captain Jack has a fucking reveal for god's sake. Seriously, either share with us spoilers Memflix, or keep your bullshit editorializing to yourself. As if everyone has to be fucking Quint or Merrick.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:50 p.m. CST

    The first Pirates is a really great film.

    by Lovecraftfan

    Lots of replay value. The second film was bigger and aside from a few sequences kind of dull. It had none of the charm of the original and it didnt feel nearly as fresh. Very dissapointing sequel.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Sweet. Sounds like another fun popcorn flick.

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz

    The 1st review was well written. Nice job.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Why everyone...

    by Fenrisulfr

    ... digs Johnny Depp and his Pirate movies is beyond me. Isn't there anyone else like me who didn't particularly love the first one, didn't see the second one and doesn't give a shit about the third one?

  • May 16, 2007, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Memflix I Beg To Differ

    by Alen Smithee

    "Davey Jones" was infact mentioned several times in POTC:TBP, not the least of which was when Will held a gunto his chin on the rail of The Pearl and said he would sacrifice himself to Davey Jones, if they didn't let Elizabeth go free

  • May 16, 2007, 1:57 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    When the curse was described in the first movie, it was unbelieveable. People were shocked when they actually saw the effects. In the second movie Captain Sparrow is like "Oh, hey there Davy!" People can identify with a movie in which curses are whispered about in dark taverns, but when Kraken and Davy Jones and people coming back from the dead becomes an everyday occurance it is no longer a world with which many can relate, and loses much of it's mystery.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:58 p.m. CST

    Yeah Fenrisulfr...those people are called...

    by LordEnigma

    assholes :)! DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, if you cant handle a story that has a lot more going on than A-C exposition where everything is explained to you. Well, guess what, you are a mook.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:59 p.m. CST

    The Pirates movie suck

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark. Watch Pirates immediately after. Pirates is shit. Here endeth the lesson.

  • May 16, 2007, 1:59 p.m. CST

    lol, why are Matrix fanboys to defensive?

    by Dr_Zoidberg

    I still remember the Matrix fanboy argument of "if you didn't like them its because you didn't understand them". Not that I'm dissing the films, I just think they took a wander up the shit pipe a few too many times, but remained somewhat enjoyable for the most part. Pirates films though, they don't have any substance. I thought the first two were very entertaining, but they just don't have that "history" that Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and even The Matrix effortlessly evoke, but you can tell they want the Pirates trilogy to be deeper than just entertainment, they want the mythology and expanded universe, with each character having a great story to tell. Sorry, just isn't there, not for me anyway. But I will see Pirates 3 and I expect to enjoy it like I did the other 2.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:02 p.m. CST


    by lionbiu

    Jack and co seemed to be chocked and surprised with the curse and the walking skeletons in the first movie. Somehow in DMC they seem to be able to accept it at face value and it seems to happen anytime everywhere. It destroys the magic and just makes it mundane. Even Harry Potter has rules and is based within some realm of reality. I am sure the effects will be great and the action will be splendid...but I doubt we will be talking about it next year.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Alen Smithee

    by Vergil

    But when Davy Jones was mentioned in the first, it was taken (one would assume) to be symbolism.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Anyone else think Spidy 3 sucked?

    by Trazadone

    Man what a disappointment.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:04 p.m. CST


    by Shakalakaboom

    "Because I spent hundreds of dollars on DVDs, movie tickets, comic books and video games in order to piece this story together. Plus, I spent HOURS in black vinyl. Do you have any idea how sticky you get in black vinyl? And it is not easy to clean, let me tell you." Hehe.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST


    by Ranson

    Thanks for the in depth explanation of the trilogy. I'm not well versed in those philosophies and concepts, so it was nice to have them all explained. If I ever watch those movies again, I'll try to keep them in mind. However, I doubt it's actually going to change my opinion of 2 and 3 all that much. While I applaude the Wachowski brothers for being willing to infuse summer blockbusters with a challenge to the audience to think deeper and look further, I think the films themselves are still flawed in a storytelling aspect. While I'm all for films with a deeper meaning, I don't think having a deeper meaning automatically makes a good film. Of course, this just comes down to my opinion, but I feel that while the Matrix trilogy may have succeeded in respresenting the Wachowski brothers ideas and philosophies, it failed to tell an interesting story with characters I cared about. I wasn't put off by the Architect or the ending of the third movie, but more so by the story itself which just failed to hold my interest past the first film. I noticed you didn't yell the key phrase most Matrix Trilogy supporters use when defending it: "If you didn't like it, you just didn't get it" and I respect that. I hope people can respect someone who just plain didn't like the story, with or without the deeper meaning.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah...

    by LordEnigma

    In what world is A New Hope a self-contained film? Seriously? Have you watched these movies that you bitch about or discuss all the time enough to know them? VADER SURVIVING is CLUE NUMBER ONE that there's more going on with A New Hope than the events of the first movie. And Zoidberg, we are defensive from dealing with people like you.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:09 p.m. CST


    by Spamgelus

    "...the Wachowski brothers showed a disdain for its fans and did their very best in trying to show everyone how much smarter they were than everyone else." And here I thought they were trying to prove that the fans were smarter than the average sci-fi action crowd. Perhaps Memflix is the dumb one. I mean, god forbid a big action extravaganza sequel should attempt to build on the mythos of the first and actually make you THINK. Anyway, if you don't like 'em, you don't like 'em. No big deal. But bringing them up in this context reeks of an agenda, hubris, and a serious need for acceptance. Get over yourself.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    Lucas had about 20 movies worth of ideas in his head (most of which were painfully groanworthy. Have you ever read the old scripts? Blech..), which he distilled quite a bit, but still hoped he could make into further installments, like his beloved serials. But a notebook full of random ideas does not a trilogy make. A New Hope WAS a self contained film. That's why it was called STAR WARS and NOT Episode IV "A New Hope" when it was released.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Not surprising

    by Mattyboy122

    The first film was a lot of fun, even if it was too long. Then the second one comes around with an overly-convoluted storyline full of contrivances, hackneyed plot devices, and aimless writing. The thing about the first film is that, when watching it, you know the characters are the ones driving the story, so you can forgive it for going on too long and its other flaws. But, with the second film, it is entirely apparent that set-pieces are driving the film (Uhh, why did we go to the cannibal island? Was it so we can have Jack do twenty-three backflips before falling 300 feet and miraculously surviving? Or, was it so we could have that ridiculous sequence with the bone-cages that seemed straight out of a 17th century precursor to American Gladiators?). And what happened to Elizabeth between the first two films? She's a nice girl in the first, but the second one rolls around and she's horny beyond belief! She holds a gun to a guy and threatens him for taking away her wedding night! WTF? What's more, the Sparrow character was completely butchered. What made the guy charming in the first flick was that he was a sort of loveable loser (at the end of the first one when he tells Elizabeth 'it would have never worked between us' and she just rolls her eyes, that IS comedy, and that is his charm). But the second film rolls around and Elizabeth suddenly has the googly eyes for Jack, just because a fucking magical compass says so!? Hmm, that's some great character development. Nighy WAS fantastic in the flick, though, I'll give DMC that. Maybe the only scene truly worth marvelling at is Jones playing his organ, but then you realize that was just jacked from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and you realize this film offers absolutely nothing new.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:15 p.m. CST shit...

    by LordEnigma

    BUT IDEAS ARE IDEAS. IF you dont get as to why it was called Star Wars. Nor have not read Lucas' explanation countless times. Well boo hoo to you buddy. However, it's not a self-contained film, and never was intended to be one. It just seemed that way at the time.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:17 p.m. CST


    by Jonesey1111

    did you have that shit waiting on your computer to post somewhere? Get a life, man.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:25 p.m. CST

    No Jonesey...

    by LordEnigma

    He wrote it in the spur of the moment to SMACK DOWN all bitch ass arguments towards the Matrix sequels. It has nothing to do with not getting it. It has something to do with the white rabbit.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:26 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    I suppose it depends on your definition of "Self-Contained". My definition is that it works well by itself. Unlike the sequels or prequels (ANY of them.) And it WAS intended to be so at the time it was made, else the studio would never have let it BE made. Compare this with Lord of the Rings when Jackson said "er...I'd like to break it up into two movies if I can" and then after showing the suits some test footage they came back and said "Hell, we'll let you make THREE movies out of that cash cow baby!" So if your definition is that George would have LIKED to make more movies and that he had some RANDOM (as in no where near a coherent story, much less a script treatment) ideas, then yeah, I guess you might say it wasn't self-contained. By the by, you can't rely on George's "memories". It common knowledge that he knowingly or mistakenly has tried to revise the history of the creation of the saga. Some guy actually wrote a whole book basically on how Darth was not going to be Luke's dad until the last minute, despite Lucas' claims to the contrary.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    The problem is that your explanation is more entertaining than the movie itself. In my opinion 2 & 3 blow it by taking what is a clever movie (part 1) and watering it down with too much partially drawn philosophy. Part 1 works because it's essentially a search for truth, but it is broad enough which is why it works. It's the human condition - something is wrong and how do you get to the real thing? Parts 2 and 3 are a lot of stumbling if you ask me because they don't want to make a definitive answer to that.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:29 p.m. CST

    robertsilence how would I have improved

    by superninja

    the 1st two of what?

  • May 16, 2007, 2:32 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    Everything sucks compared to Raiders!

  • May 16, 2007, 2:33 p.m. CST

    The Matrix has history?

    by superninja

    Dang, 'cause that seemed all shallow and Post-Modern to me.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:47 p.m. CST


    by Ezra James Sharkington

    So where's the Lost talkback?

  • May 16, 2007, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Re: knowthyself

    by J-Dizzle

    Luke and Leia kiss in Episode 4 because Lucas didn't plan Leia as being Luke's sister, the third trilogy (Episodes 7, 8, 9) was meant to lead to the discovery of Luke's sister and the destruction of the Empire. However, Lucas realized that there wouldn't be a third trilogy and so he was forced to sum everything up in Episode 6 (ROTJ) and thus resort to making Leia Luke's sister instead of leaving it as an unanswered question.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST

    I absolutely despised the first pirates.

    by pip1345

    What a tedious and boring film. I liked the second one because it was funnier, darker, more competently made, and actually had quality special effects. Also, Jack's character is three times more interesting--and a huge dick! It may have been a little busy, but it was better.

  • May 16, 2007, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Matrix tries to be more than just entertainment

    by Octaveaeon

    Put yourself in the shoes of Neo. You have seen - or have knowledge of - something you cannot share with those stuck in the 'second' cave of Zion. This cave represents reality now, particularly brought to light by the whole postmodernist paradox (attempt to transcend all ideologies, i.e. the search for absolute freedom, and perpetual peace). This is 'Reason' in the Hegelian sense. Likewise, Reason is necessarily embedded in History as it is in the Matrix. For Hegel this is evident in the capacity of self-consciousness to recognize itself in the process, in History, just as Neo recognizes himself when he realizes that his struggle with Smith within the Matrix is actually the representation of an even larger struggle that plays itself outside this artificial construct (beyond Time), and that even this process in its cyclical and recursive nature is the manifestation of spirit in actuality. This is the wisdom through recollection that one attains once one chooses to resolve the eternal tension by choosing to preserve it – an eternal act endlessly playing itself out within a temporal moment – through the act of sacrifice. The crucial point, though, is that so too is the modern reader (ideally) capable of recognizing himself and his relation to modernity, i.e. as a self-conscious subject within a historically determined temporal space, through these archetypical myths, and most significantly, through philosophy. For while myth and religion, like philosophy, preserve the weapons of the battle bequeathed to us by previous generations, it is philosophy that in sacrifice resolves the dialectical tension. This is what is meant by the life and death struggle. There is no conformity to superficial representations, such as orthodox Christianity with a transubstantiated ‘son of God’ or Modernity with (empirical) Reason. Instead, by identifying itself with the speculative process, dialectical reason escapes the temptation to fall back upon awe or tyranny that may befall those presented the absolute choice of reason and revelation – the origin of wisdom in the moment of recollection. As Hegel said, “to comprehend what is is the task of philosophy, for what is is reason.” End and reason are unified in this process, which in History must culminate in the recognition of the choice: the necessity of sacrifice, e.g. by accepting his fate (becoming a "slave" of History/Matrix) at the very moment of recollection, i.e. wisdom.

  • May 16, 2007, 3 p.m. CST

    Jerry Bruckheimer Raped My Childhood

    by Darth Jackass

    Is it me are did anyone like Dead Mans Chest? Because by reading the talkbacks you would think everyone hated it. You would think Dead Mans Chest was a commercial bust. I thought Dead Mans Chest was a worthy sequel & one of the best times i had in a movie theater last summer. If At Worlds End is on par with Dead Mans Cheast then this will be the movie to kick off the summer. TOO MUCH HATE IN THESE TALKBACKS!!! Is't the purpose of this site for people who are into movies. Or is this a place to come and shit all over them. Latly it seemes like the latter and when i say latly i meen the last few years. Can't wait for the "Jerry Bruckheimer Raped My Childhood" quote....Grow the Fuck Up Talkbackers & get off this site with all your hate....

  • May 16, 2007, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Slithy Toves

    by Vergil

    The people who think they can understand all the philosophy Jabberwocky are usually the same people that think they see squibs in 911 footage.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Actually MEMFLIX

    by movie-fan-carnie

    the matrix movies were ment to be a trilogy right from the get go, they didnt jst try to cash in on the success of one.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Darth Jackass

    by Vergil

    It is also a place for filmgoers to vent their frustration over what they view as lost potential.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:04 p.m. CST

    I just realized

    by Vergil

    how much of an understatement that was...

  • May 16, 2007, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Yes it's true, THE SEARCH ENGINE SUCKS

    by ballyhoo

    I also hate that the Review section doesn't have an alphabetized archive any more. So now when I want to track down Harry's review of Ghosts of Mars, (or even see if he DID review it) I have to use the torturous search engine.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Nicely done Octaveaon

    by mooseaka

    Great recap. That was the most succinct, yet comprehensive recap of the series I have ever read, and I've read a lot on the Matrix trilogy.<P> I'm a staunch Matrix sequel defender, particularly Reloaded which is my favorite of the trilogy, but I also agree somewhat with "Ranson" that the awsome story and themes didn't automatically equate to awsome movies, particularly #3. I have three major gripes with Revolutions:<p><p> (1) Morpheus was absolutely useless. He plays second fiddle to Seraph in the gun fight, to Trinity in the Merovingian negotiations, and to Niobe in the hovercraft chase. Mythologically, he should have died at the end of Reloaded when his purpose was fulfilled (to find the one, then bring him to the source) and his ship was destroyed where he would have had a nobler fate.<p><p>(2) Neo wasn't in the movie enough, and there were long stretches of time between his scenes. Why make a movie about computer-Jesus only to keep Jesus offscreen for a half hour at a time? Even Peter Jackson knew he couldn't do 45 straight minutes of Helms Deep without checking in on Frodo and Sam. Bad writing on the W.'s part there.<p><p> (3) Too much time spent with minor characters. Niobe? The "Goddamn" Captain? The Kid? Captain Mfune? Michael from Lost's Wife? Fake Vasquez? These guys had more screen time than our trinity of main characters. Terrible decision by the W's to do that. <p><p> Otherwise, it's a nearly perfect franchise IMHO.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:11 p.m. CST


    by jopo1280

    I'm realy tired of everyone hating on the matrix trilogy. I was informed a long time ago that the matrix was written as a trilogy. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's right.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:19 p.m. CST


    by Vergil

    You and Wikipedia both.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:22 p.m. CST


    by El Borak

    where's the lost-back?

  • May 16, 2007, 3:23 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    Fine. But two points: 1) You can only accomplish this if you can convey symbolism and in my opinion the Bros. W stink at it and boy howdee. If you understood all of this upon first viewing a cookie for you, but while the impression was there, it was mostly a mess. 2) I agree it ultimately conveys meaninglessness and treats this as some sort of high calling when it is not. It's death/rebirth stuff that has been around forever (see The Fountain, see Baldur, see Horus). Purposeless as it only prolongs suffering and has no end. It basically tells you at the end to buy the good BIG LIE. Nice, eh?

  • May 16, 2007, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Lets Hope

    by FrancoNeroLuv

    I just hope Pirates 3 is half as good as Halloween 3.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Ok Ok Ok

    by Dr Weird

    Enough of the matrix can't we just all agree to disagree. I got it and it was a watchable movie but it is one that I will probably ever buy it has no rewachability to it at all. I even pass it over when flipping through the movie channels. Ok now that I have bitched back to the original topic. I don't care what anyone says I love the PotC movies and plan to be there opening night to see AWE. Just my view from this site but it seems to me that there are quite a few men/boys posting and not so many females putting their input in so here I am. I'm guessing there aren't enough titties in PotC for you and therefore not a good movie. It must be a horrible thing to have 2 hot men that your girlfriend or wife or possibly your hand would rather have sex with than you. Must be really bashing to your male egos. btw i only added orlando bloom because there are some women out there who find him good looking. Johnny is the only man for me.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Story payoff

    by PullMyFinger

    the critic at wired posted his review today and said that the storylines that were opened in #2 are nicely resolved in #3. with geoffrey rush back in this one and davy jones, who is arguably the best movie villain in the last five years, i have high hopes for this movie.

  • May 16, 2007, 3:51 p.m. CST


    by thebearovingian

    Well, maybe one of them, and his name is Octaveaeon. No doubt about it...I love RELOADED. <P> stlfilmwire - interesting thought about Keith Richards possibly being Jack Sparrow's son. <P> AICN's search engine is exquisitely terrible. Please try it and find out for yourself!

  • May 16, 2007, 4 p.m. CST

    Keith Richards is probably....

    by Err

    Sparrow's brother. Sparrow's parents went away/died while the boys were young and Keith's character took care of Sparrow.

  • May 16, 2007, 4 p.m. CST


    by jasper Stillwell

    That is spot on - it seems we need everything explained NICE AND EASY otherwise some doofus will feel cheated that the 'big arrow' didn't tell himn how to feel or think. Why does a blockbuster have to be so damn stupid? Jaws isn't? Raiders isn't? I blame texting in films myself.....harumph....

  • May 16, 2007, 4:11 p.m. CST

    jasper stillwell

    by kwisatzhaderach

    its another knock on effect of huge corporations taking over the studios and treating their audiences like morons. The blockbuster movie is in terminal decline.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Davy Jones is the new Darth Vader.

    by superninja

    Because Darth Vader is now a teenage girl and no longer cool. :)

  • May 16, 2007, 4:16 p.m. CST

    It's not that the Matrix sequals where that bad

    by pjdon

    It's just that they had no real relation to the first film. Which was a perfectly constructed action sci-fi movie. In an editing room you could not lose a second, it is so trim and never once are you lost or bored.<p>There was no fun in the sequals, no tension, no characters to relate to. It was a different type of film altogether.<p>The original Matrix was intelligent but anyone could understand it, first time. It didn't need long pieces of dialouge to make you think.<p>The sequals had so many long speaches about the meaning of it all but they seemed stupid, immature. They tried to hard.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:17 p.m. CST

    re: Davy jones is the new Darth Vader

    by jopo1280

    Come on people leave Star Wars alone. Say what you will about the rest.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Pirates 3

    by ruiz2010

    Is it me? Or have we gotten harder and harder to be pleased? I'm watching this movie, despite the crappy reviews posted here. I was entertained by Spidey, I look forward to Shrek, despite the crappy reviews on another site. And I look forward to Pirates 3, not because I don't appreciate film, and like schlock. But, because I'm tired of nit picking movies. Even if the great George Lucas would find this one "silly" as well, if it's entertaining, then I will consider the movie good.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:24 p.m. CST


    by Boromir187

    "Davy Jones' Locker" was mentioned twice in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film. First, the crew of the Black Pearl mentioned that the last time they had seen Bill Turner was when he was "sinkin' into the crushing black oblivion of Davy Jones' Locker" after they had weighted him down and tossed him overboard for objecting to their mutiny against Jack. Then, later in the film, Will Turner pointed a gun at his own head and stated that if they didn't listen to him he'd "pull this trigger and be lost to Davy Jones's locker". Not huge revelations about a squid-man living under the sea, but the nods are there nonetheless. As for what was added in DMC, most of it was pulled straight out of pirate lore and just embellished a bit. Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman, the Kraken, Calypso, the end of the world, Davy Jones' Locker, etc. They took these old myths and molded them as they saw fit to work with the story they were telling, but it isn't as if they made it all up. Besides, I think it's cool that they actually to the time to go back through the first film and see what they could build off of for the opposed to just making something up on the spot. And what's with these reviews? I want a review of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End..........not an essay on this person's thoughts on the Matrix, Spider-Man, and X-men trilogies!!! Give us some real reviews that actually tell us something!

  • May 16, 2007, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Shitty Reviews

    by tile_mcgillus

    Mem typed alot without really saying anything. Second one was fucking incomprehensible.<p>The Matrix movies are a good time. Basic philosophy and cool action make for a fun time. That is a series that received ALOT of unneccesary hate. Spiderman 3 deserves all the hate it gets. I am excited to see this Pirates movie. HOLLA!

  • May 16, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Die Hard 4 has been moved forward to June 27th

    by GregoryHarbin

    Seriously, there needs to be a main post about this. Now that Bruce isn't competing with Transformers (at least for 7 days), it stands a chance of being successful.<p> I for one am really glad, because it means I can see LFODH in theaters rather than on an eventual DVD release.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:32 p.m. CST

    mooseaka, i know you posted near the top

    by pjdon

    about how much the matrix trilogy made us think. Well the dirst one did, why did we need the second to to try and badly explain to us why they made us think.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Best sentence ever!

    by trupson

    "The Matrix therefore mediates the process that allows the manifestation of self-consciousness in terms of cyclical recursiveness and the materialization of its own essential aspects." Octaveaeon, you should copyright this one.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Potc 3 talkback anyone??

    by Dr Weird

    Come on someone has to say it Kiera Knightly is the sexiest tomboy beanpole who's gotta eat

  • May 16, 2007, 4:51 p.m. CST


    by mooseaka

    I'm not sure I can answer your question. If you think the sequels did a bad job of expanding on the first movie, that's totally your opinion and I'm not going to argue with you. Personally, I don't think the sequels "undid" what the original Matrix did. I just thought they took the whole concept of the Matrix to the next level and challenged some of the assumptions the viewer might have made about the first movie. For example: at the end of the Matrix, nobody stops and thinks "Hey, if computers can control everything about the Matrix, why the hell would they allow a "One" to exist? Wouldn't they just nip it in the bud?" The answer, as the Architect reveals in shocking fashion, is that the One is a necessary byproduct of the system that is integral in the machines MAINTAINING control, rather than him being the deliverer who would undo their control. Its stunningly logical. Same for the reveal that the machines know all about Zion and they come down and clean house every cycle. Duh! How hard could it be for such amazingly advanced machines to find a bunch of warm blooded creatures, with noisey machines, and heartbeats, who have a penchant for making loud music and stomping the earth? It was silly to think the machines didn't know where Zion was.<P><P>Again, if you didn't like these developments, that's your opinion. But I thought they were both interesting and brilliant in their logic, and I enjoyed trying to piece it all together.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:52 p.m. CST

    potc talkback

    by jopo1280

    Kiera Knightley is hot but she's realy a Natalie Portman Look alike. Only not as hot.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Dead Man's Chest and At World's End are one film

    by performingmonkey

    A lot of story elements were setup in Dead Man's Chest but none of the questions were answered. At World's End makes it a complete movie. One of the biggest questions is - what exactly does Lord Beckett have against Jack and piracy in general? He gives some bullshit about the 'new world' where piracy has no place but the real reason he's pissed must lie with his beef with Jack. He left his mark on Jack and as Will says 'what mark did he leave on you?' I'm interested in finding that out.

  • May 16, 2007, 4:55 p.m. CST


    by Cobbio

    I saw "POTC 2" in the theater and don't remember a second of it. I remember being entertained, sort of, but I honestly can't remember one line or scene from the film. My mind probably blacked it out for me.<p> I enjoyed the first "POTC" film for what it was: pirate characters fighting and not being serious. I remember most of this film even though I only saw it once in the theater years ago. For me, that's how BAD "POTC 2" was.<p> Therefore, I probably won't be seeing "POTC 3," since it sounds like an extension of the utterly forgettable second film. Oh well.<p> Jack Sparrow was a great character in "POTC." What the fuck happened?

  • May 16, 2007, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Octaveaeon can you write a piece explaining

    by pjdon

    to us how the first Matrix made us think and led to so many discussions about the meaning of reality while still being a fun entertaining, exciting, funny film.<p>You may be right about the deep meaning of the sequals but why do they have to spend time explaining it to us.<p>If it was made to make us think then why do they try and spell it all out.<p>Having a character stand and talk for minutes on end is bad film making full stop.<P>The meaning in a film should be explaind by having a story with scenes showing us what is going on. Not by having a ultimately pointless action scene followed by two characters standing explaing the next bit of the plot.<p>A film can be intelligent and entertaing, The Matrix proved this. When it finished people cheered in the cinema, it gave you such a buzz and you didn't stop theorising for days.<p>It had likable characters you could relate to and it explained what was going on by showing you in terms everyone could understand. Without having to stop watching the film to think about it.<p>There where no characters in the sequals, just actors explaining the plot to the camera.<p>I had never heard such silence and shrugs at the end of a film as I had with Revolutions. After a couple of views it does all make sense but why couldn't it have had an exciting, fast moving intelligent plot which satisfied everyone. Not just the people who take the time to study it.<p>George Lucas made the same mistake with Starwars. He first made a trilogy which everyone of every age could understand and enjoy. It was fun and exciting.<p>Then he made a trilogy with no adventure or excitement which left most small kids baffled and didn't do much for anyone else.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:03 p.m. CST

    But mooseaka, in the process

    by pjdon

    of tring to explain it all they forgot to have a film also.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Are we harder to please?

    by superninja

    No. Movies have become inferior despite an increase in technology. They are largely devoid of meaningful subject matter.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:13 p.m. CST


    by Dr Weird

    Does anyone else think that Gibbs has some of the cheesiest lines ever to be in a movie. They really annoy me anyone else think so?

  • May 16, 2007, 5:29 p.m. CST

    superninja i disagree...

    by pjdon

    I don't think a movie has to be that meaningful. It can just be fun, ie. Pirates 1, Starwars, Indiana Jones etc. I think the problem is this whole 'expanding the universe' concept, have you ever seen that philosophy go well? If they try and 'add' too much to the simple structure of the new Indiana Jones film (which I guess Lucas will try and do) it will spoil it. It will probably become about some secret vast mythology which Indys entire family will be related to instead of just having a simple Maguffin for our heroes to chase.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Sorry, Octaveaeon

    by MrScratch0753

    ....but you've caused me to re-register fror the first time in about 5 years just to respond to you. I am so sick and tired of the defense "you just don't get it" in response to any/all criticisms of the Mtrix trilogy. I get it, I just don't like it. Now, I own the first Matrix movie, and I loved the second one, but for me the entire series was hanging upon whether or not Fat Man and Little Fag actually had a "great plan" when they started or were just cribbing yet another lie from Mr. Lucas, and I was crushed when the 3rd film collapsed under the weight of unresolved plotlines, video-game ads, and truly FAUX now I just pretend that there was only one flick, and ignore the rest.....Again, this is just my own opinion. But DON'T EVER assume that just because someone doesn't like a movie or series, that it means they didn't understand it.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:42 p.m. CST

    It's statment such as these...

    by LordEnigma

    "The meaning in a film should be explaind by having a story with scenes showing us what is going on. Not by having a ultimately pointless action scene followed by two characters standing explaing the next bit of the plot." Yeah pjdon. You have a REAL GRASP of what's going on in those movies.'re deep dude. You're deep.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:43 p.m. CST

    I was hoping that faggot robertsilence would show up.

    by Zarles

    Dark? Very dark? Sounds great to me. I take my trilogy-ending pirate movies how I take my men.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:48 p.m. CST

    That first review is odd.

    by minderbinder

    It goes on at extreme length comparing the POTC movies to both the matrix and Spiderman 3, giving the impression that he's going to tear it apart...and then when he finally gets to the actual review, it's positive. No big complaints, just that it was overlong and confusing (which has been said about the first two as well). Stick to talking about the movie, not having trilogy pissing contests.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Not really, Gibbs is a cheezy stock character it's

    by superninja

    part of the joke.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Am I the only one that thinks both of those reviewers..

    by PirateEmery

    ... are mentally retarded? I mean, that was the crappiest review I've ever read.<p> Reviewer #1 sounded very "I'm a casual fan of the franchise, so I'm going to ANALYZE it as theatrical art, rather than a popcorn-selling thrill ride." I can pick out several quotes that shows that he/she wasn't a huge fan of the FIRST. How do I expect to agree with a reviewer when he thinks the second was the worst film of all time?<p> And Reviewer #2 just sucked. To be honest, why did you guys even post it? It was drivel. Absolute shit. "It was dark, I'm confused."<p> Why do people keep citing that they are confused, thus number 2 (and I guess number 3 as well) must be a bad movie.<p> Have you stopped to think that, oh, perhaps it's YOU? I watched DMC again, and I was not confused. It made sense, because I put in the effort to THINK about the mythology behind the story. Davy Jones is the Grim Reaper character. People make deals with the devil, and thus owe the devil their souls. Except, here, they work on Jones' ship. Jack liked his ship so much that he wanted Jones to raise it from the depths, thus guaranteeing a spot in Jones' crew in 13 years time. Thirteen years come, and Jack doesn't want to go through with this deal with the devil. So he runs. The devil uses all his supernatural weapons to hunt down Jack and ultimately kills him (sends him to Purgatory/the Locker).<p> That's a stand-alone plot. I can't WAIT to go see this film and laugh at these reviewers some more.

  • May 16, 2007, 5:59 p.m. CST

    pjdon, those "fun" movies all have meaningful

    by superninja

    themes beneath the fun. They just aren't of the navel-gazing variety, they are the kind that cross cultures and are inherent in the human condition. <p> I agree that less is more is usually a good rule of thumb, however, I liked POTC2 and how it broadened its universe. Could I have lived without a few things? Sure. It could've been tighter, but it was not a major misfire or anything.

  • May 16, 2007, 6 p.m. CST

    pjdon, about the New Indy.

    by superninja

    I'm sure it will suck for the reasons you suggest. However, all of that stuff is windowdressing to distract from the fact they don't have a meaningful story and characters.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:09 p.m. CST


    by Err

    is not a fair assessment. Pirates 3 will be better. I agree that it'll be better than 2 but not as good as 1.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Yeah, it makes sense.

    by superninja

    Jack is a dandy. He would sell his soul and then try to give him your soul when payment is due. Davy Jones is going to be fantastic in part 3. He will end up being like Vader where he is tragic but still a big ahole.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:20 p.m. CST

    When Memflix said World's End is better than Dead Man's

    by Trader Groucho 2

    Chest, it was music to Bruckheimer's ears. More than $1.1 billion worth of music, I'm guessing. Money BS aside, I liked Chest a lot and am looking forward to salty pirates taking the dry taste of spider webs and sand out of my mouth (and I'm sure that didn't come out right).

  • May 16, 2007, 6:20 p.m. CST

    shit, gilmour, then it's you!

    by eloy

    I thought it was just an urban legend but you do exist! the one reviewer sworn to secrecy who actually keeps his word!

  • May 16, 2007, 6:21 p.m. CST

    I think you meant crying spider webs and sand?

    by superninja


  • May 16, 2007, 6:26 p.m. CST


    by Magnum Opus

    How can you compare "Chest" to any of the Matrix movies? I mean, Chest was totally devoid of any redeeming qualities, unless you just really enjoy watching things go boom. The fact that it contained some decent acting just confounds its shityness because it was wasted in an IQ draining slop-fest aimed at teenage girls and mongoloids.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:30 p.m. CST

    The Matrix (the original) WAS an existentialist piece

    by neovsmatrix

    and hardly about the man vs. machine angle. Memflix clearly has no clue what he's talking about if he's mistaking the man vs. machine angle as the central theme of the movie, rather than just a way to discuss existentialist topics.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Jack is the Dorian Gray of pirates

    by superninja


  • May 16, 2007, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Matrix had one good idea

    by superninja

    and then had Keanu Reeves looking like he was staring at a blank wall and some good special effects. Hahah, you guys kill me!

  • May 16, 2007, 6:33 p.m. CST

    I'm the first reviewer

    by memflix

    After 2 viewings of The Matrix, I had a solid understanding of the movie. I loved it. The first Matrix was rich in philosophy and religious references, as were the 2nd and 3rd films. However, the tonal shift in Reloaded put me off. I have seen the 2nd and third films several times to see if i was missing something. When I realized i wasn't meant to really 'get it,' I was pissed off because I was under the impression from the first one, that it was intended to be comprehended. I love movies with open themes. I thoroughly enjoyed The Fountain. Lordenigma and piratemry, if you want to spew hateful language towards me or my writing, please head on over to, so I can defend myself more efficiently.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Oh, you were supposed to get it. And that

    by superninja

    message is that everything is meaningless and futile. It's like a Borg recruitment film.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Superninja and Pjdon

    by ruiz2010

    I can see your point of view, and pjdon's as well. But in the case of sequels, shouldn't we expect lowering qualities. And just hope for the best, cause the way Hollywood is set up right now is to continue making movies for the sake of making money. So with that in mind, if the movie keeps me entertained, I would consider my lowered expectations meet. I know my mind set, encourages filmmakers to continue making films this way. But they won't change, how they operate at this point .I give up, take my money, Hollywood! But at least give me a fun time.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:53 p.m. CST

    It seems to me that Matrix

    by Monkey Butler

    It seems to me that Matrix fans and Matrix haters talk at cross purposes a lot. On the one hand, you’ve got the defenders talking about the philosophy of the films (as if it’s the most original or stunning thing around - as a philosophy major, I can tell you it’s really not) and occasionally the action, while on the other, you’ve got the haters talking about story, characterisation and occasionally the action. My opinion? The actual plot of the sequels is interesting, although totally unsupported by the first film. As some other TBer said, the idea that The One is just another method of control is kinda cool, but that’s about as far as it goes. The “philosophy” of the sequels gets mired in the ridiculous Messiah metaphor, the characters are flat and uninteresting, the action scenes are monotonous, and the love story was just terrible. In other words, the sequels are decent in theory, but terrible in execution. <p> As for PoTC, the first film was much better than it had any right to be, and the sequel was enjoyable excess that I really doubt would hold up to repeat viewings. I’m seeing the third film opening night on a huge screen, because I think that’s the only way to see a film like this. More than likely I’ll have completely forgotten about it within six months, just like DMC, but while it lasts, I’m sure it’ll be a fun ride.

  • May 16, 2007, 6:55 p.m. CST

    The many. The mindless. The Borg.

    by Bronx Cheer

    <p>Did anyone ever notice that there was not a tremendous ethnic diversity amongst the Borg rank? Or did I fail to notice the rich diversity because the Borg are a color-blind society?</p> <p>As for The Matrix, the first one was a blast of effects and pseudomumbo jumbo but it had a lot of cool business going on. The other two films suffered from bloat and self-importance. The best part about them was Agent Smith. The rest of them needed to shower more frequently.</p> <p>As for the Pirates, the first was fun but not quite sure of itself, the second was a big fun flick, and the third is...well, I suppose I'll find out when I see it. I couldn't tell a thing from the first review because the reviewer was busy grinding an axe against every trilogy ever released, and the second review was so polluted by bad and illegal punctuation that I just had to quit reading it.</p> <p>They're freakin' pirate movies. When did pirate movies have the responsibility to make any sense? I just want some sailing, some shooting, some swashbuckling, and some swilling, and a few wenches with tight bodices. Take the quest for intellectualism and stow it.</p>

  • May 16, 2007, 7:13 p.m. CST

    If you're talking about POTC

    by superninja

    arrr, ye are right me matey!

  • May 16, 2007, 7:14 p.m. CST

    This movie needs an albatross

    by superninja

    around somebody's neck. Just sayin'.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:14 p.m. CST

    LordEnigma, i don't know if you are being sarcastic...

    by pjdon

    What are you actually arguing with me about? <P>Are you saying all films should just have people talking to the camera instead of an actual structured narative which reveals the story? <p>This argument is not about getting the 'Philosophy' of these films(which is interesting). Anyone could make a film about that, it is putting it into a film so it is still a piece of entertainment which is the trick. <P>If you cannot put accross your ideas in a film using 75% visual and 25% dialouge then you have failed, especialy in what is supposed to be an action film. If they wanted us to sit and listen to their ideas then why didn't they just write a book. <p>I do agree with Superninja in that a film does have to be meaningful but the audience does not need to be told every little reason behind this meaning on screen. The characters and what is actually driving them at any particular moment is what should drive the film. The first film showed you could combine a lot of ideas without losing any sense of pace. <p>Just think of Morpheus fighting Neo while explaing the Matrix compared to a 20 minute car chase which resolves nothing followed by someone talking for 5 minutes solid. In terms of writting and narrative it is simply bad film making. Lazy film making. They could not combine their ideas within the structure of the film so they had to separate them...Action...talking...action...talking. It is perfectly possible to have them both going on at the same time.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Keira Knightly is that albatross.

    by Bronx Cheer

    Just sayin'.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Monkey Butler

    by superninja

    The love story in the Matrix is terrible. In fact, that is perhaps the big gaping hole in the movie for me. It largely comes across as a sterile world in both the Matrix and outside of it devoid of love but filled with empty passions. Anyway, I agree with you, you can talk up great ideas all day long but if you can't execute them who cares?

  • May 16, 2007, 7:18 p.m. CST

    And Mermaids, dang it.

    by superninja

    I want some mermaids. And kelpies and wereseals.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:20 p.m. CST

    pjdon, agree 100% with you there.

    by superninja

    The action and forward movement of the plot should be able to convey the themes in a great movie. That is the whole point of having it communicated via film.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Figuratively or literally, Bronx?

    by superninja


  • May 16, 2007, 7:28 p.m. CST

    LordEnigma are you being sarcastic?

    by pjdon

    I am not dismissing the philosophy of the Matrix sequals. I am just saying why did they have to have it spelt out so much.<p>Having a character explain things for a long period of time in a film is always bad film making. It is similar to if halfway through a film a page of writing just appeared on the screen for the audience to read.<p>In The Matrix Morpheus taught Neo about the Matrix through fight training, jumping off a building, actually showing him what he needed to know. The audience therefore didn't get bored.<p>Reveloutions actually had someone talking to the audience telling them all the information. That is lazy film making. They could not combine all their ideas within the structure of the film so they had to have someone monolouge it all for them. Ask anyone who knows anything about film, writing or narrative and they will tell you that it is the biggest mistake you can make in a film.<p>I do agree with Superninja that a film should have meaning but you don't need to explain it all to the audience. Imagine if they had added another half an hour to the original Starwars where Ben Kenobi spent minutes at a time going into every detail of the force or explaining the politics surrounding the war. Oh wait thats exactly what they did with the prequals.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:31 p.m. CST

    Sorry, my first post went missing

    by pjdon

    And I couldn't quite remember what I wrote so I have posted to slightly different versions of the same post.<p>Wish I could combine them now though.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:39 p.m. CST


    by moondoggy2u

    I say we keel haul the first reviewer and lash the second to the main mast. And AICN? <br>........................<br>20 lashes to AICN for impugning a Pirate's honor!!! AAARRRRRRR!!!!

  • May 16, 2007, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Man, why did they have to mention the Matrix

    by SylarTheCylon

    Now i'm fucking depressed. Why did they fuck up those sequels so much? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY? Damn. How hard was it to do a kick ass matrix movie? How hard? It all feels so useless.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Where the Matrix had to go

    by mooseaka

    First, a disclaimer about what I'm about to write. Don't read this as a "if you didn't like it, it's because you didn't understand it" rant, because that's not what I'm getting at.<P><P> Ok, that being said, the reason I love the Matrix sequels is because they found a way to advance the Matrix universe in an extremely creative, yet logical way. As someone wrote earlier, the first movie ended with the main character being omnipotent. That was proven again in the first ten minutes of Reloaded when he easily dispatched three upgraded agents. It was proven further when he dispatched a room full of automatic weapon toting thugs, stopping their bullets, then out-dueling them with their array of weapons. So, using this logic, what direction could Neo's story go for two sequels? How many times did you want to see him beat up agents, fight off armies, and wash goo off of newly freed bluepills?<p><p>Instead of going that route, the W's challenged the borders of the world they created, and did so in brilliant fashion. Hollywood would dictate that at the end of The Matrix, Neo would go around freeing everybody and the sun would rise, blah blah blah. But the story isn't that simple. How could Neo free everybody? Where would they live? Wouldn't the machines fight back? Wouldn't they get annoyed and say "screw this, too many of our generators are escaping, lets crush these assholes!"<p><p> Then, they threw a huge curveball in which is one of my favorite parts of the trilogy. If AI give a machine sentience, then it can also give the same power to a program. Programs can rebel. Programs can want to live, and reproduce. Programs can exist to do their purpose, and nothing more. Great stuff.<p><p>Finally, as I wrote earlier, the big reveal was that the One is not some mythological prophecy. It's a freakin' algorithm manifesting itself, which is the Matrix's failsafe. It is the Matrix's immuno system kicking in when it appears that it is in danger of collapse. Beautiful stuff.<p><p>As for the movie itself, yes, there were a lot of monologues, but I enjoyed them. If pjdon or any others who didn't like the sequels were turned off by monologue after monologue, that's cool. I loved them. I've probably watched the Architect scene 50 times, maybe more. The Merovingian, too.<p><p> As for action, geeze. I don't understand why people don't like the highway scene. There are about 100 amazing stunts in that chase, and the camera effects are awsome. Watch the scene where Trinity rides against traffic again, and realize the camera just ducked under a tractor trailer to follow her. Look for the CGI seams. They aren't there. Watch the cars get flipped. Realize you are comforatbly watching a universe where you know that an Agent can take over any person on the road, that there are ghost programs that can pass through solids, and then say, wow, this is great stuff.<p><p>I've already said my gripes about Revolutions as a movie earlier. I agree, they dropped the ball and made a less than perfect movie, and I wish they could redo Revolutions someday and make it a better "movie". But I have no complaints about where the mythology of the story ended up.

  • May 16, 2007, 7:48 p.m. CST

    hor hor hor

    by AvengingFist

    tit tat

  • May 16, 2007, 7:50 p.m. CST

    2 viewings? I got the matrix in one

    by misnomer

    I was just dissapointed it didnt turn out to be a matrix within a matrix. I enjoyed the second movie, but the third movie was bare. Plus, why add so many characters to the mix? Thing is.....the sequels werent surprising really. There are moments in the matrix that threaten to bring it down - tank and gozer, the jellyfish things. The signs were there. Seeing P3 next week...BUT I DONT KNOW WHY!

  • May 16, 2007, 7:58 p.m. CST

    This brings me back to the Matrix talkback wars

    by AvengingFist

    yes my grandchildren, the matrix talkback wars. yes. vis a vis, 101101001001110010100101001001 100101001 10101001 10101001

  • May 16, 2007, 8 p.m. CST

    that said I wont hear a word

    by misnomer

    that said I wont hear a word against reloaded - except for the architect scene. The delivery of that was really pretentious, although the actual revelation in that scene was seriously cool.

  • May 16, 2007, 8:03 p.m. CST

    yeah I remember the matrix

    by misnomer

    yeah I remember the matrix talkback...I wrote a friggin essay defending reloaded....but, despite the rich subtext the sequels forgot that less is more.

  • May 16, 2007, 8:03 p.m. CST

    The problem with the Matrix sequels...

    by Vadakin

    It all boils down to one simple thing...5 years (or however long it's been) after the end of Matrix Revolutions, nobody has a fucking clue what happened to Neo. <p> Are all the Smiths connected like computers on the internet so when Neo became a Smith, the machines put a virus in his brain, which spread across th system, destroying the Smiths? <p> The Oracles virtual body was restored, as were everyone elses, when Smith was destroyed, but why wasn't Neo's? <p> Will the humans and the machines work together to clear the sky so that the sun will shine through and power the machines, which would allow the humans to leave the Matrix without the Machines dying? <p> Is Neo dead? <p> How could Neo see machine code in the real world? Is his brain cybernetic or is the "real" world actually just another level of the Matrix? <p> What happened to Bane's mind when Smith took over? Was Bane still in there somewhere? And how could a collection of 1's and 0's take control of a human brain anyway? Sure the matrix does it, but that runs on massive amounts of energy. <p> Are the Oracles premonitions a result of the fact that everything in the Matrix has happened before and that it happens every hundred years or so? How does she know what Neo is dreaming? Can she read his mind inside the Matrix? <p> Once again, is Neo's mind cybernetic? Otherwise how could he stop sentinels by thinking it in the real world, if it is in fact the real world? Are we talking psychic abilities here? <p> Do the machines write self-aware programs on purpose? Wouldn't that be a major problem? After all the humans created self aware programs who turned on their masters and enslaved them within the Matrix...shouldn't the machines have realised that the same thing could happen to them? <p> The problem with the Matrix trilogy is that is poses a lot of questions but delivers few answers. <p> Neo must be alive since his virtual body wasn't found at the end of Revolutions, but his physical body was...and as we know from the first film, when you die in the Matrix, your digital image remains in the program (as shown when Cypher pulled the plug in the first film). If he's alive what do the machines want with him and if he's dead, what use could they possibly have for his body? <p> It's not a question of understanding the Matrix trilogy, the problem lies in the fact that the Wachowskis created question after question and were either unwilling or unable to provide any answers. <p> If there is ever a fourth film, it should be called Matrix Resolution <p> Sorry for the rant, I like the Matrix movies, but they are frustrating.

  • May 16, 2007, 8:10 p.m. CST

    mooseaka, i didn't have a problem

    by pjdon

    with the philosophy of the films. I had a problem with them trying to put it in a film. It's like if they had somone talking in Jaws for 20 minutes about sharks. Yes the film is about sharks but we only need to know so much. <p>The car chase had amazing special effects and some of the best stunts ever. Still doesn't make it any good. A chase scene should be about a chase, one person running after or away from another. There should be tension. There was no tension in that chase scene. You can look at a film like Duel, no big stunts, no special effects yet you are on the edge of your seat the whole time. That is what a chase scene should be about. <p>Think about a time when you where being chased, even if just while playing a game when young. Remember that feeling like your heart was going to explode with the tension when someone was gaining on you or someone about to find you if you are hiding. They are the feelings a chase scene should envoke. Special effects and big stunts can't do that alone.

  • May 16, 2007, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Proud to say that...

    by pinkfloyd2000

    Have never seen any of the "Pirates" movies, nor will I ever. Don't try to convince me I'm "missing out" because I'm almost 100% fucking sure I'm not. Since when did Pink Floyd's guitarist do movie reviews, incidentally?

  • May 16, 2007, 8:14 p.m. CST

    misnomer, i don't think there was

    by pjdon

    any subtext in the Matrix sequals. It was all spelt out in long monolouges. Subtext is when you look for meaning hidden within something. Them films where just lectures.<p>I agree though less is always better. Films like Dead Mans Chest could lose 20 mins and you'd be left with a much better more enjoyable film.

  • May 16, 2007, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Literal albatross, and I second the mermaids.

    by Bronx Cheer

    Bring on the merbots!

  • May 16, 2007, 8:25 p.m. CST

    pinkfloyd2000, why are you proud of your closed mind?

    by Bronx Cheer

    It doesn't hurt to give something a shot, does it? You haven't proven anything by steadfastly refusing to watch two movies other than that you are unwilling to give something a fair shake that you already have your mind made up about. I didn't have any interest in seeing the first Pirates flick, and it wasn't a waste of time. The second was a good time. Neither one killed any brain cells. I survived the experience.

  • May 16, 2007, 8:33 p.m. CST

    pjdon. exactly.

    by misnomer

    it was like reading baudrillard word for word at times. heres what I had to say back in the TB Matrix Wars if youre interested: It's a sort of interesting point, but I don't think such a perfect ending would have suited the series. That's kind of like the man vs machine war everyone seemed to be hoping the sequel was. TALKBACK WARS: I was a fan of reloaded when I first saw it, and was disappointed by revolutions. Over time, I grew to dislike them both. The simple fact is, with the first matrix, I guess everyone was duped. They were overestimating what they were seeing. I doubt if mainstream audiences at the time were as aware of the movies influences or.....had seen "Dark City" ;) They (and I) were thinking "wow-this is the most original and exciting film I've seen in a long time." But, what we SHOULD have been thinking was "this is a great comic book movie that touches upon a bit of religion, a bit of post-modern philosophy, a bit of japanimation etc" People didn't see it that way, what they saw an ingenious film that was balanced, subtle and mysterious. A film which promised a climactic conclusion. (I don't think anybody expected, or wanted a trilogy) However, looking back, the warning signs are there in the first picture-the sentinel that almost manages to take you right out of the movie-or the badly written dialogue of some of the crew members. Other than say 5 minutes of dodginess however,the movie was pure gold...a lucky strike? Now I don't loathe the sequels as much as some- not at all- but they pale in comparison to the first movie. And yes, before you start, I've read baudrillard etc The thing is, NO-ONE COULD HAVE WRITTEN A SEQUEL TO THE MATRIX THAT WOULD SATISFY. They wrote themselves into a corner due to a very simple over-sight. Neo become too powerful too quickly. Less is always more and the atmosphere of the first was lost in the bloated sequels. The balance in the sequels leant too much toward explanatroy exposition and far-fetched action. It came too much like it's influences. Reloaded DID have great moments and I loved the idea that neo had power in the REAL world thus making him more than a a "systemic eventuality" but a messiah. I liked the idea that an audience just had to accept ...neo is powerful in the real world which was a nice parallel to faith. But again, too many characters. The acting is seriously wooden on all counts.I also didn't like morpheus' character arc, which felt like it betrayed the character of the first picture. The concept of a real world smith, whilst unexpected and very cool was seriously underused. Overall I couldnt help but feel had the movie focused solely on the crew; had the movie shown that trinity, seifer etc were literally the LAST dregs of the human race....the last freedom fighters, it would have been so much better. If Zion had remained mythic, then the movies may not have felt so flabby. As for Revolutions, I really didnt like it at all. Far too little time was spent in the matrix, all of the rich sub texts were absent, Neo was hardly in it (a big problem with the sequels) and the movie had a relatively predictable ending. Everyone knew that the christ-figure Neo would have to sacrifice himself to save the world....what if they had changed that ending? Ergo,inexorably,vis a vis: condense reloaded/revolutions into one film. Call it The Matrix II for a start...remove a number of wooden characters and unnecessary plot points/pop philosophical psycho- babble *except for the merovingian and architect, they can stay* and you've probably got a damn good,worthwhile sequel. But for such mediocrity to come after an incredibly well-directed and tightly written is not unsurprising they are viewed with such contempt. I'll forgive the wachowski's if vendetta is as good as it looks to be ; ) UPDATE: That was a lie. I loved V, but it still didn't make me forgive them for the Matrix sequels.

  • May 16, 2007, 8:45 p.m. CST

    I'm actually looking forward to Speed Racer

    by pjdon

    It will be a simple fun movie about racing. Surely even the W bros can't over complicate that. And I can't wait to see how it looks visually.

  • May 16, 2007, 9:24 p.m. CST


    by Monkey Butler

    I'm pretty sure plenty of people know what happened to Neo. It's in the Bible. That simple really. Neo died for the sins of the machine world and the human world, so that a truce could be reached and so that Smith could be killed (I can't remember where I read it, but there's some bullshit mumbo-jumbo about Neo and Smith being binary opposites and so cancelling each other out which explains the last point. Also apparently because of his contact with "the Source" he has some sort of control over machines, that's why he can destroy them). It's best not to think too deeply into it, because there's no real answer to "where did Neo go?" or "what happens now?" because it's a pretty superficial metaphor. The easiest answers are "Neo went to Heaven, but he'll be back someday. Promise. Honestly." and "that's irrelevant" respectively.

  • May 16, 2007, 9:57 p.m. CST

    I May Be Alone Here

    by Birdys Piano Teacher

    But I liked Pirates 2 way more than the first. And they actually made Knightley and Bloom's characters vital to the story, instead of the just the studio's backup plan since they had no faith in Johnny Depp.

  • May 16, 2007, 10:34 p.m. CST

    The chase and monologues

    by mooseaka

    I can see why you had problems with the chase pjdon. It was not entirely clear who was running from who and why. It was in some ways like they said "lets do the best car chase ever" but in execution it wasn't exactly necessary or clear why it was necessary.<P><P>Why were they being chased exactly? The ghosts and the agents wanted the exile. The ghosts were getting him back for the Merovingian, but why was he so important to him? Who knows... is it because the Merovingian is a collector, or he likes to retain his assets? Obviously he wasn't worried about the whole Neo side of things, so it seemed to be for purely selfish reasons. Whatever. Ok, and the agents? Well, it appeared they were just following one of their directives is to track down exiles to keep the Matrix clean. Again, it doesn't really make you fear for Trinity and Morpheus, who are nothing more than collateral targets. Perhaps had we known ahead of time who the Keymaker was and his significance, we would be concerned about his survival, but at that point, all we knew was that he was important in an ambiguous way. <p><P> I hear you. <p><P>As for the lectures, I'd like to know which one's exactly you'd want to cut out. Remember, there was a LOT to cover and put out on the table. I wouldn't take a word out of the Architect's or Oracle's mouth for the entire trilogy. The only "monologue" I can think of that was superfluous was the Merovingian in Revolutions, which was kind of forced and protracted.

  • May 16, 2007, 10:44 p.m. CST

    First Matrix -- just as clunky as the sequels

    by hktelemacher

    Just not as packed full of stuff or strangely high expectations. The fact that the first one defined so much for so many is the real problem. The most cringe inducing moment in the entire trilogy for me happens in the first, when the Chong fella says "This is loco" with straight faced method intensity. After swallowing that particular pill, pun intended?, the sequels were a cool dip in the pool. The sequels suffered from some filler, but considering the biggest story coup was already over and done with, they were more interesting both visually and conceptually than the first one. Just my two cents. Pirates is suffering from the same thing now -- I think they're wildly entertaining and beautifully realized, but there's this pedestal (and now a negative blowback reacting to that pedestal) of fantacism among the general populace that they're put on that's both undeserved and impossible to really live up to. Just like how I don't see a dip in quality between the Matrix movies, there's essentially no difference in the Pirates franchise either - other than people giving the first one godly status and balking at how the sequels can't suck them off through the screen.

  • May 16, 2007, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Your right mooseaka, having a clear definition

    by pjdon

    of why someone is being chased is the key to a chase. If you are scared enough of the 'chaser' i.e in a film like Alien or the Agents in the 1st Matrix then it gives you a constant level of tension. Also if the person the main character is chasing has something you know the main character needs without question i.e. a loved one or a bomb you create automatic tension.<p>I loved how in MI:III we had them trying to escape in a helicopter from some rather deadly Apache copters (tension level 1), through a field of wind turbines (tension level 2) while trying to diffuse a bomb in the girls head (tension level 3) which could only be diffused when the difflibulator had charged which takes 30 seconds (tension level 4). This is how you do a good chase you layer dilemas ontop of each other creating constant dilemas in the audiences head.<p>Another important factor is Geography. So many chases and action scenes in movies have the problem due to mainly bad editing of you not having a clue of where the protaganists are in relation to each other. You can't create tension if you don't know how close the person is to getting caught.

  • May 16, 2007, 11:25 p.m. CST

    Matrix Reloaded was brilliant!

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    And the twist at the end was a well earned wallop that reversed the entire concept of the franchise. Neo wasn't a hero, he was another part of the machine. the Questions this brings up about the nature of free will were tantalizing. however, the 3rd film I just didn't do it for me. I'm not much for war films though.

  • May 16, 2007, 11:47 p.m. CST

    I loved the first one...

    by PolyesterRage

    Ridiculously loved the second, and am completely excited for the 3rd. If these people didn't like the second and I did, does that mean the opposite of what they say is true for me?

  • May 17, 2007, 12:07 a.m. CST

    loved pirates!

    by the darkman

    I loved Dead Man's Chest, and I'm really looking forward to At World's End. I still feel some people are a little hard on DMC. It all made sense, and then some, and I believe that all the story lines will payoff in this one. If you really buy into the characters then I can't see how you would not like these movies. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but come on people give it a rest, and just enjoy the ride.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:21 a.m. CST

    My problems with Matrix 2 and 3...

    by TheGreenStyle

    1. I was just getting sick of the cyberpunk atmosphere. it got too dull to continue to stomach. (and though it wasn't in the movie itself, one of the animatrix shorts really offended me. The one where kid comes out of the matrix, basically, by killing himsel. Yeah, that's the kind of message we want to send to emotionally fragile teengagers. "Don't like your parents? School sucks? well, guess what? It's all a fabrication by the man to keep you down, and if you kill yourself, you go on to a world where you're cool and have superpowers and can participate in giant raves/orgies without your parents saying boo about it. So go ahead, jump!")<br> <br> 2. Yes, part 2 did have a big cliffhanger. Neo being the one isn't what everybody thought, both he and the human resistance is just another giant control from the machines. they anticipated everything. the humans have no chance. Also, neo seems to have powers in the "real" world too. And then we get part 3, and... both points are dropped and minimized. Neo IS still special and IS still the one and the whole control angle is dropped. and oracle just waives off the whole powers in the real world thing. ugh. <br> <br> 3. But what I hate most of all is the fans. these movies set up a little Matrix intelligista club that is utterly pretentious. Because whenever anyone says they don't like the second two, the fans just say, "WELL, YOU'RE DUMB. THEY JUST WENT OVER YOUR HEAD. WE ALL GOT THEM, AND WE ALL THINK THEY ARE THE GREATEST MOVIES EVER. YOU'RE JUST A RETARD!" Stupid bullet proofing crap like that. Look. I get what they are about, okay? I understand the movie. I had intro to philosophy and intro to comparitive religions in college too. I just still think the movies suck.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Dead man's chest sucks. Matrix 2 and 3 Suck!

    by lost.rules

    Nuff said.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Nice arguement!

    by the darkman

    Nuff said!

  • May 17, 2007, 12:35 a.m. CST

    The people who say "Nuff Said"

    by TheGreenStyle

    Never seem to stop talking. Sorry, I'm just sick of the phrase.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:39 a.m. CST

    I agree!

    by the darkman

    at least write something. It's not that hard to think of something more the Nuff said.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Spiderman 3 is way better than both Matrix sequels.

    by Smashing

    First Matrix was exciting blend of lots of old school sci fi ideas, the second two crammed in a lot of pseudo waffle that ultimately meant nothing, or everything, hardly cinematic gold. I liked both Pirates movies, they do not take themselves too seriously and I would imagine the third will deliver more exciting, fun action, as someone mentioned we are not too picky but maybe too spoilt? We discuss endlessly movies and tear them new ones without maybe stopping to think that just because we can does not mean we should. If you want to enjoy a film then allow yourself to do so, its not about viewing it to do the first review, or write the first clever deconstruction online, its about going to the cinema, with friends and being transported somewhere else, sniff, I am teary eyed now, though it is 0640 and I woke at 0300 and not been able to get back to sleep. I read this whole talk back in one go and smoked 2 joints during it, overall its a good read though that bit explaining the matrix made me both dizzy and confused, I am no dummy but anyone who thinks all that existential malarkey makes for exciting cinema is way off the track I like my films on. Also a lot of Matrix defense seems to be to suggest that if you do not like the films then you do not understand them, Alas given its lovers cannot agree what it is about either that is a bad argument, rude too.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:44 a.m. CST

    I don't remember who said it

    by coolhanderik

    But someone was talking about the reasons why Revelations wasn't so good, and I agree completely, the biggest problem being the fucking stars of the trilogy were in it for what seemed like 20 mins. I enjoyed Reloaded though.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Also the cave rave?

    by Smashing

    I was blushing with embarrassment during this scene and I am a gay but the sight of Keanu's pale arse dry humping that twig woman made me feel physically ill, The Wachowski Brothers raped my Keanu fantasies and made them empty and cold.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:53 a.m. CST

    My God...

    by crashcow

    Most of you are morons. This talkback is like a Kevin Smith script except with real, lonely fanboy virgins doing the dialogue. I think I'll go sleep with my wife and see whatever movies I want to see. Enjoy your fuzzy palms...

  • May 17, 2007, 12:58 a.m. CST

    This is a Talkback I will long remember...

    by drompter

    For I have read the stupidest shit ever written: that Star Wars is a self-contained movie and there where no plans for others. Yeah, I loved Vader's dead at the end, his ship sucked by a black hole, while Luke became a Jedi and defeated the emperor; the movie ending with Han marrying Leia. On another subject, both Matrix sequels sucked, while both Pirates movies are some of the most entertaining movies of the last ten years.

  • May 17, 2007, 12:58 a.m. CST

    eh, you'll probably be divorced within 10 years anyway

    by TheGreenStyle

    and right back in the same situation as us youngsters. bitching about movies and masturbating. only you'll have to make massive alimony/childsupport payments as well.

  • May 17, 2007, 1:04 a.m. CST

    sigh, drompter...

    by TheGreenStyle

    there's a difference between resolving everything and being self-contained. If Star Wars was the only Star Wars ever, and no prequals or Sequals occured, we still wouldn't be cheated. Luke has become a Jedi and dealt a crippling blow to the empire. It's nice that we got the sequals that wrapped everything up, but it wasn't neccissary.<br> <br> By the Way, do you believe that Lucas actually planned the whole thing out from the begginning? if you do, you're misinformed. Go Read "Star Wars: the Annotated Screenplays" for the real Score. There's also an ebook out called "The Secret History of Star Wars" that explains it too. Basically, Lucas made the first one with only the first one in mind and he had a hell of a time with it. only after it opened did he start considering sequals and prequals.

  • May 17, 2007, 2:01 a.m. CST

    Sequels, yes! Prequels, no.

    by lost.rules

    Lucas probably did intend on sequels, ie. Vader flying away unharmed, but I don't think he intended prequels, ie. crappiness of all the prequels.

  • May 17, 2007, 2:06 a.m. CST

    Vader died in all the drafts of the first one...

    by TheGreenStyle

    until the final shooting draft, when George did decide that Vader was a good enough villain to keep alive incase he did make another one. But he didn't have a story for Empire or Jedi until late 78. it wasn't all pre planned.<br> <br> late in 77, when asked about future movies, when idea he threw out was maybe doing some "Young Obi-wan Kenobi" movies some day. remember, he didn't have the story yet. He hadn't even decided Annikin and Darth Vader were the same person yet. As late as the rough draft of empire strikes back, Annikin Skywalker was separate from Vader. Annikin's Spirit even materializes in Dagobah, and Yoda lightsaber duels him!

  • May 17, 2007, 2:19 a.m. CST

    He doesn't have to get divorced


    If he stays married, he'll still be masturbating. And paying for everything. And challenged about the money he spends for DVDs and video games, when it could be going to new furniture. And treated like an idiot for having anything that he enjoys that isn't in servitude to the woman.<br><br>Of course, she's still giving him some, now. That's the system. Won't be long 'til she always has a headache or her face hurts or it's not his birthday and here hold my purse. And why are spending so much time on that stupid movie site? Let's go look for throw pillows!

  • May 17, 2007, 2:27 a.m. CST

    I Enjoyed All the Matrix Movies . . .


    Better than Spiderman 3. However, I can totally understand why someone wouldn't like them. And I don't think it makes me smarter that I like a fucking film--that's stupid. I just happen to like those movies. I especially like that I got the DVDs for $5 a piece at Dollar General because they over-printed 'em. And, tho I liked the sequels, each had unbearable moments, like the rave sequence in number 2. Ouch! But I enjoyed a lot of the things people didn't like, especially the nutty psuedo-philosophical dialog, and respected what they were trying to do with those movies a lot more than, say, 'V is for Vendetta'. And 'T is for Tedious!" But I guarantee you that there a lot of people out there who thin; 'V' is the superior film to any of the Matrix pics. I thought it was a big fat turd. However, I don't think our opinions of movies really reflect our overall intelligence.

  • May 17, 2007, 2:53 a.m. CST


    by lost.rules

    You lied to me! So, does this mean J.K. didn't have Potter planned all the way through, cause if so I'm really going to be disappointed.

  • May 17, 2007, 3:23 a.m. CST


    by jasper Stillwell

    Agreed and a very prescient comment there - this all looks like the acceleration period before the form collapses totally.

  • May 17, 2007, 3:28 a.m. CST

    If you want to understand the fate of Neo,

    by Octaveaeon

    consider then the fate of Socrates. This association is not arbitrary. When Neo first meets the Oracle, he stands underneath a sign saying 'Temet Nosce' (latin for 'know thyself'). In Plato's 'Phaedrus', which is a dialogue on the nature of love AND the 'art of writing' (in the broad sense), Socrates attributes this saying to the Oracle at Delphi. The core of the Socratic path is guided by this junction. This leads to the famous Socratic saying, 'knowledge is virtue'. This is what Neo ultimately learns. He also realizes what differentiates him from everybody else (knowledge), and why he cannot replay the role of 'saviour' (this new level of awareness is the manifestation of a process that he himself is a manifestation of, but at a higher level of awarness than before). Although the majority will choose (out of complacency, ignorance, unwillingness or incapacity) to remain enslaved in the cave of shadows (i.e. the Platonic cave), the love he shares with Trinity awakened him to the limitations of such a knowledge, and the crucial tension that arises between him and those who depend on him (i.e., between philosophy and the city [the latter relies mostly on opinion than the quest for true knowledge of the whole]). With this comes responsibility, and duty (moderation and courage). Remember, when everybody is dancing in the cave, they are the only ones seperate from the group. But their detachment from the group remains in harmonious kinship with the essence of humanity, something which is not the case with Smith's detachment from the Matrix. Smith is in fact driven by curiosity and a desire for power and control. But Neo, in becoming aware of (or 'recollecting', in the platonic sense) his past 'reincarnations', chooses wisely, and in harmony with his fate and that of what is intrinsic to mankind. To illustrate this choice, let me bring up a crucial myth that Plato brings up at the end of the "Republic": the Myth of Er. Er was a great warrior who was slain in battle and – considered dead – is placed upon a funeral pyre. While his body awaits the usual ceremony, his soul travels to the beyond; to a realm in-between the heavens and the nether regions within and below the earth. Here Er observes that each direction contains two paths that meet at a plain in the middle. He also beholds countless other souls, as well as the judges passing sentence upon their deeds. As such, those who have been guilty of evil must descend directly, while the good are instructed to go upwards with a scroll outlining their blessedness. Er is told to take notice, for he is to return to earth with this account. He accordingly sees how on the other path towards the underworld, souls ascend weary from their ordeals, meeting on this plain those who descend from the bliss they have experienced. Those destined to return to earth are then situated before an axis of light, the axis of heaven and earth, in the middle of which stands the spindle of Necessity, commanded by the Goddess of Necessity, and her three daughters of Fate (the Moirae): Lachesis, Clotho and Atropos. While the goddess keeps the spindle moving and as such keeps in harmony the Music of the Spheres guiding the sun, the moon, and the planets on their circular path around the spindle, the three Sisters, representing the past, present and future, are meant to deal with the fate of all mortal souls on Earth. Lachesis proclaims to those present that they may choose their fortune, yet warns them that the choice is theirs alone, and thus so are the consequences. She then substantiates the daemon meant to help the soul fulfill his chosen destiny. This daemon guides the soul to Clotho, who confirms the choice by bringing the souls to touch the spindle, whereby Atropos spins the thread to make the choice irreversible. Lastly all souls and corresponding daemons bow before the throne of Necessity and travel to the underworld in order to drink the waters of forgetfulness from the river Lethe and erase all memories of this experience upon reincarnation. Er takes notice of Orpheus, Ajax, and Agamemnon, among others. He also observes Odysseus, who seeks a quiet life after considering his own life and the consequences of his actions. Er, who is exempted from all this, himself awakes on the twelfth day of his funeral, just before the pyre is lit, amazing all those witnessing the miracle and its supporting account.*** The ‘Myth of Er’ is the poetic imitation of a model. It represents the necessity of education, the function of which is made manifest in the Platonic dialogues. The end of these is to make us aware of our limitations and to seek the good. The myth is therefore presented to justify a certain notion of virtue: responsibility for one’s choices. In the context of the whole, however, it illustrates the necessity of philosophy, for only the philosophical life is equipped to choose what is right. Only the philosophical soul is, by definition, geared to go beyond imitations of the Forms to fulfill the Idea. Because of the essential ‘heterogeneity of being’ to which man is exposed and partakes of, Plato’s dialogues are consciously constructed so as to not only set up the edifying basis from which the willing soul is to ascend after his descent and unmasking, but to guide without undue provocation those who, although still unequipped, nevertheless are exposed and influenced by these accounts, i.e. the non-philosophers. This is the point of the 'art of writing', and should be placed in the context of Socrates' death at the behest of the Athenian democracy. True piety, in this sense, is acting in accordance with the 'order of the stars' and the immortality of the soul, and therefore in such a manner that you help advance the order (laws) in your 'polis' (city-state). This is all based on a thorough reflection on human nature, which considering that Plato lived in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Sparta and Athens (Athens lost), gives us an idea of the 'political' importance of philosophy that Plato was trying to discern. All these themes are relevant today. Read Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" and you get a new perspective on what's going on in the world today, both at the international and at the individual (human) level. It's one thing to choose what's best for yourself, with only your interest in mind. The point of philosophy, in the classical sense, is to put this in context of 'the good', that is, in the what is best for the polis, for it is only by guaranteeing a sense of harmony can the values and virtues that exemplify 'the good' be maintained, EVEN AFTER WAR. In a sense, this is what the Matrix trilogy, despite its flaws, is trying to convey. [Another story that may place this in its proper cosmological perspective is the myth of Indra and the Ants, or the awakening of the Buddha).

  • May 17, 2007, 3:48 a.m. CST

    Writer of the films = arrogant

    by Mr Gorilla

    There's an interview with one of the writers in a mag in the UK called TOTAL FILM. HE says that he things that the Pirates films will only be properly understood and appreciated at least 5 years from now. Who does he think he is? Freakin' Brecht? DHLawrence? The arrogance of these movies is amazing. BTW I think the first reviewer is ON THE MONEY when they write about people trying to make trilogies where they shouldn't.

  • May 17, 2007, 4 a.m. CST

    To conclude:

    by Octaveaeon

    The drama of Neo/Socrates and his relation with Zion/Athens reveals how a democracy itself is a result of decay (‘architect of its own demise’), yet at the same time the best means possible for purification. This decay comes about by unfettered desire no longer guided by 'eros'. When individuals go beyond their natural ends in search for unnecessary things that do not pertain to their well-being (artificial intelligence), dissatisfaction succeeds the uneven conditions that arise, and these in turn breed conflicts. But the need for a restoration of justice precludes education of justice, resulting in a form of justice that “will no longer be effective naturally” because some sort of compulsion will become necessary. Hierarchies are then created. In seeking the highest philosophy becomes the ‘art of arts’, and this is reflected in the mythical character that Socrates’ conversation on the education to piety displays (of which the Matrix trilogy is a representation). This is meant both for the educated and the educators. But it is also meant to show “the ‘mythical’ character of theology, or the gravity of failing to raise and answer the question: ‘what is a god?’, or, ‘who are the gods?’”. What is necessary is that which was held as such in the pre-philosophic city, the natural city before it became distinguished from the holy city; i.e. before it became an idealization for philosophy. This displacement is the result of the “ascension” of philosophy – ‘from what is first for us to what is first by nature’. This move was effectuated by placing the city in the Cave, whereas it had once been seen “as a world, as the highest in the world”. Hegel missed this crucial distinction. When he writes “what is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational” he is answering the ‘what is’ question from the ascended position. His focus on the actuality of the existing political order as the movement of freedom and reason is the result of the identification, whether critical or not, of an actual relation between Divinity and Philosophy, an a posteriori perspective. On the other hand the pre-philosophic city “sees itself as subject and subservient to the divine in the ordinary understanding of the divine or looks up to it”. In this complete political immersion: “the present war is the greatest war”. The whole is at stake, so everything must be accounted for in their relation to each other, and these in turn to the whole. The abstraction from 'eros' and nature in Plato’s dialogues showed us the essential limits of the city and consequently gave us not only the mythical cave but also (classical) political philosophy. Hegel showed us the essential limits of reason by abstracting from classical philosophy and divine Law, i.e. from the antagonism that gave us modern political philosophy. By doing so he firmly established historicized consciousness, and as a result revealed to us the template for the second cave of post-modernity by systematizing its influence. To breach the walls of post-modernity we need to ascend from the second cave of illusion – based on the notion of an ‘ascension’ from the primordial Platonic cave – to the original cave with which we differentiated ourselves from nature and divinity. From here, we must descend yet again, from ‘what is first by nature’ to what is ‘first for us’. We distinguish ‘us’ from ‘nature’ not on ontological grounds – for post-modernity and historical consciousness have taught us that this path leads to the absolutization of an epistemologically scientific reality and faith in technology – but out of necessity. Man is reaching its limits on this planet, in this cosmos, with this soul. We need to adapt to these new circumstances. We must see ourselves and this world as the highest in the universe, i.e., our global network of cities as immersed in the greatest of wars.

  • May 17, 2007, 4:02 a.m. CST


    by lionbiu

    I am sorry but all this bullshit that those of us who did not like it did not get a joke. The movie had too many subplots and lost all of the fun, magic, horror, suspense and consitancy of the first movie. It was was big loud obnoxious and dumb. Whihc is not a problem if the movie has some sort of plot. I predict in 5 years no one will be talking about Pirates 1, 2 or 3.

  • May 17, 2007, 5:16 a.m. CST

    God Octaveaeon its so much clearer now.

    by Smashing

    Thanks truly, I honestly cannot think why people thought the 2nd and 3rd film where pretentious, over-baked, teen angst, psycho fluff, your precise and concise break down has cast the scales from my eyes and I am now ready to never wash again, pierce my whole face and become a cave living raver.

  • May 17, 2007, 5:32 a.m. CST

    Johnny wasn't at the junket...

    by filmcoyote

    because due to his daughters illness causing shooting shut-down Sweeney Todd is still shooting in London and DreamWorks/WB wouldn't delay again for Depp to do press on POTC3. By the original schedule he'd have been there. Don't know about Knightley, she's shooting the Dylan Thomas movie but would have thought they'd have sorted her schedule to get her out.

  • May 17, 2007, 5:55 a.m. CST

    Courier Pigeon

    by SpiceMonkey27

    It's a passenger pigeon. I was watching Ghost Dog this morning, great movie..

  • May 17, 2007, 6:11 a.m. CST

    I like the first 2...

    by Sundaycall1

    Pearl more than Chest but Chest has it's moments. I don't think this trilogy was every going the be the Star Wars esque series the film-makers think it is. But I don't think it's gonna be remembered in the same way the Matrix trilogy is either. Spose we'll have to wait and see.

  • May 17, 2007, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Bring back Lost TB you sell

    by Vishnu

    Bring back Lost TB you sell outs!

  • May 17, 2007, 8:36 a.m. CST

    The movies I've walked out of?

    by moondoggy2u

    The Alamo (new version), Batteries Not Included, City Slickers, Judge Dread, and Mission Impossible 2. Beat that level of crud.

  • May 17, 2007, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Pirates and Spidey...

    by biggles2_22

    ...I have no doubt that the Pirates movies AND their sequels will be remembered and enjoyed for years to come. (Frankly, I loved DMC just as much as COTBP) However, as much as I love Raimi, S3 sucked sooo bad that I'll choose to forget it exists and enjoy the first two. Matrix? Weird thing. As powerful as my disdain for the sequels was, I still find myself popping them in and giving them a go around from time to time.

  • May 17, 2007, 9:06 a.m. CST

    there are always movies biggles...

    by just pillow talk

    where you know it's a train wreck, but you just can't turn away from the horror that it is...

  • May 17, 2007, 9:22 a.m. CST

    just pillow talk, word.

    by biggles2_22

    Hudson Hawk, Flash Gordon (the motion picture), and Mel Gibsons Payback come to mind, as well.

  • May 17, 2007, 9:36 a.m. CST

    'disservice in 1&2'

    by memflix

    Sorry. meant to say 2 & 3.

  • May 17, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Actually, this problem was also dealt with in Dune:

    by Octaveaeon

    “Lord,” she said, “I would know the motives which forced you to choose your life.” “First, you must understand what it is like to see our future.” “With your help, I will try.” “Nothing is ever separated from its source,” he said. “Seeing futures is a vision of a continuum in which all things take shape like bubbles forming beneath a waterfall. You see them and then they vanish into a stream. If the stream ends, it is as though the bubbles never were. That stream is my Golden Path and I saw it end.” “Your choice—“ she gestured at his body—“changed that?” “It is changing. The change comes not only from the manner of my life but from the manner of my death.” “You know how you will die?” “Not how. I know only the Golden Path in which it will occur.” “Lord, I do not…” “It is difficult to understand, I know. I will die four deaths—the death of the flesh, the death of the soul, the death of the myth, and the death of reason. And all these deaths contain the seed of resurrection.” “You will return from…” “The seeds will return.” “When you are gone, what will happen to your religion?” “All religions are a single communion. The spectrum remains unbroken within the Golden Path. It is only that humans see first one part and then another. Delusions can be called accidents of the senses.” “People will still worship you,” she said. “Yes.” “But when forever ends, there will be anger,” she said. “There will be denial. Some will say you were just an ordinary tyrant.” “Delusion,” he agreed. A lump in her throat prevented her from speaking for a moment, then: “How does your life and your death change the…” She shook her head. “Life will continue.” “I believe that, Lord, but how?” “Each cycle is a reaction to the preceding cycle. If you think about the shape of my Empire, then you know the shape of the next cycle.” She looked away from him. “Everything I learned about your Family told me that you would do this—“ she gestured blindly in his direction without looking at him—“only with a selfless motive. I do not think I truly know the shape of your Empire, though.” “Leto’s Golden Peace?” “There is less peace than some would have us believe,” she said, looking back at him. The honesty of her! he thought. Nothing deterred it. “This is the time of the stomach,” he said. “This is the time when we expand as a single cell expands.” “But something is missing,” she said. She is like the Duncans, he thought. Something is missing and they sense it immediately. “The flesh grows, but the psyche does not grow,” he said. “The psyche?” “That reflexive awareness which tells us how very alive we can become. You know it well, Hwi. It is that sense which tells you how to be true to yourself.” “Your religion is not enough,” she said. “No religion can ever be enough. It is a matter of choice—a single, lonely choice. Do you understand now why your friendship and your company mean so much to me?” She blinked back tears, nodding, then: “Why don’t people know this?” “Because the conditions don’t permit it.” “The conditions which you dictate?” “Precisely. Look throughout my Empire. Do you see the shape?” She closed her eyes, thinking. “One wishes to sit by a river and fish every day?” he asked. “Excellent. That is life. You desire to sail a small boat across an island sea and visit strangers? Superb! What else is there to do?” “Travel in space?” she asked and there was a defiant note in her voice. She opened her eyes. “You have observed that the Guild and I do not allow this.” “You do not allow it.” “True. If the Guild disobeys me, it gets no spice.” “And holding people planetbound keeps them out of mischief.” “It does something more important than that. It fills them with a longing to travel. It creates a need to make far voyages and see strange things. Eventually, travel comes to mean freedom.” “But the spice dwindles,” she said. “And freedom becomes more precious every day.” “This can only lead to desperation and violence,” she said. “A wise man in my ancestry—I was actually that person, you know? Do you understand that there are no strangers in my past?” She nodded, awed. “This wise man observed that wealth is a tool of freedom. But the pursuit of wealth is the way to slavery.” “The Guild and the Sisterhood enslave themselves!” “And the Ixians and the Tleilaxu and all the others. Oh, they ferret out a bit of hidden melange from time to time and that keeps the attention fixed. A very interesting game, don’t you think?” “But when the violence comes…” “There will be famines and hard thoughts.” “Here on Arrakis, too?” “Here, there, everywhere. People will look back on my tyranny as the good old days. I will be the mirror of their future.” “But it will be terrible!” she objected. She could have no other reaction, he thought. He said: “As the land refuses to support the people, the survivors will crowd into smaller and smaller refuges. A terrible selection process will be repeated on many worlds—explosive birthrates and dwindling food.” “But couldn’t the Guild…” “The Guild will be largely helpless without sufficient melange to operate available transports.” “Won’t the rich escape?” “Some of them.” “Then you haven’t really changed anything. We will just go on struggling and dying.” “Until the sandworm reigns once more on Arrakis. We will have tested ourselves by then with a profound experience shared by all. We will have learned that a thing which can happen on one planet can happen on any planet.” “So much pain and death,” she whispered. “Don’t you understand about death?” he asked. “You must understand. The species must understand. All life must understand.” “Help me, Lord,” she whispered. “It is the most profound experience of any creature,” he said. “Short of death come the things which risk and mirror it—life-threatening diseases, injuries and accidents … childbirth for a woman … and once it was combat for males.” “But your Fish Speakers are…” “They teach about survival,” he said. Her eyes went wide with understanding. “The survivors. Of course!” “How precious you are,” he said. “How rare and precious. Bless the Ixians!” “And curse them?” “That, too.” “I did not think I could ever understand about your Fish Speakers,” she said. “Not even Moneo sees it,” he said. “And I despair of the Duncans.” “You have to appreciate life before you want to preserve it,” she said. “And it’s the survivors who maintain the most light and poignant hold upon the beauties of living. Women know this more often than men because birth is the reflection of death.” “My Uncle Malky always said you had good reasons for denying combat and casual violence to men. What a bitter lesson!” “Without readily available violence, men have few ways of testing how they will meet that final experience,” he said. “Something is missing. The psyche does not grow. What is it people say about Leto’s Peace?” “That you make us wallow in pointless decadence like pigs in our own filth.” “Always recognize the accuracy of folk wisdom,” he said. “Decadence.” “Most men have no principles,” she said. “The women of Ix complain about it constantly.” “When I need to identify rebels, I look for men with principles,” he said. She stared at him silently, and he thought how that simple reaction spoke so deeply of her intelligence. “Where do you think I find my best administrators?” he asked. A small gasp escaped her. “Principles,” he said, “are what you fight for. Most men go through a lifetime unchallenged, except at the final moment. They have so few unfriendly arenas in which to test themselves.” “They have you,” she said. “But I am so powerful,” he said. “I am the equivalent of suicide. Who would seek certain death?” -- Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune

  • May 17, 2007, 9:47 a.m. CST


    by biggles2_22

    word. Could you also post the entire LOTR trilogy so I don't have to buy it? Thanks!

  • May 17, 2007, 10:04 a.m. CST

    to put this in further perspective

    by Octaveaeon

    "Because the state of eudemonia is almost a retrospective; it’s what others will come to regard the life you lived as having amounted to – your living that life as best as you can – and it is posterity that will pass judgment on whether or not all things considered it was the life others of us wished we could live. It’s not something the actor himself is ever going to know, because the actor himself has not been told by Clotho just how much time he’s got, do you see. So it’s destiny and fate and these other factors that answer questions of that kind [...] Now, I dilate on this approach to the problem of knowledge and the problem of conduct to raise a point or two about the problem of governance. We here much about the ancient Athenian democracy. And we know that the ancient Athenian democracy had to save itself from what would have been the tyrannical rule of the Persians. But it turns out that the ancient Athenian democracy is not saved by the Athenians. If it’s saved by any part of the Greek speaking world more than by the rest, it’s saved by Sparta. ‘Leonidas and the battle of Thermopylae’ – you know, that sort of thing. In Plato’s Republic we are going to see this again; we’re going to see this reflection. On whether at the end of the day it is an infantry, trained for hand-to-hand combat, that finally carries with it the core precepts on which governments finally depend. Or whether it’s an Athenian navy, striking an enemy at a distance – being remote, not only from the scene of battle, but from battle’s most imminent threats. And we’re going to discover that Plato, like Herodotus, and in an interesting way like Aristotle himself, sees in the conflagration and the immediacy of one’s own mortality something so richly character forming as perhaps to have no substitute. Thus we find Aristotle much later saying that 'truth be told, the virtues to be developed fully probably will only be developed in warfare'. What a daunting and chilling thought that is, and how awful if it’s true." [Daniel Robinson, Lecture VI – Know Thyself: Herodotus and the lamp of History; From: Great Ideas of Philosophy (lectures)]

  • May 17, 2007, 10:12 a.m. CST


    by biggles2_22

    What was that middle thingy, about the thing? Just curious. Thanks.

  • May 17, 2007, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Why does every so-called trilogy...

    by Jakes Nel

    ... these days have to end with everyone going to war? What is it good for?

  • May 17, 2007, 10:29 a.m. CST

    my point is that art is a mirror

    by Octaveaeon

    of the world we inhabit. This has been the case seen our ancestors started painting in actual caves; by relating themselves and their external experiences in ritualistic manner through initiation and artistic visions, they helped shape the cosmos in accordance with their own lives. This is why the 'Tree of wisdom/knoledge/immortality/good and evil' is so ubiquitous in human mythology. The duality of heaven-underworld is related to that of life-death, and this is also seen in the relation man-woman. This is also how the duality of light-darkness would eventually gain religious significance in the context of good-evil. For a while this worked, even when the Gods that had accompanied us since our origins - and who taught us their skills (e.g. Prometheus, Hephaestus, Athena) for our sake - left us alone in an infinite universe (in distinction to an eternal cosmos). The problem is: the emancipation of man (everyone being disconnected from the Matrix) depends an absolute equality being the final goal. Absolute equality would destroy mankind as we know it. Only machines could achieve such a state, since even nature knows nothing of equality, only the alternation of chaos and harmony (motion). This is why utopia always ends up becoming dystopia. The question is if we can continue living in such a cycle without annihilating ourselves in the process, and also retaining that which is intrinsically human.

  • May 17, 2007, 10:30 a.m. CST

    you have to read carefully biggles...

    by just pillow talk

    it's "that sort of thing." Could it really be anything else?<p>Make sure it's the extended editions of LOTR too..

  • May 17, 2007, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Sounds kinda bad to be

    by Ricky Henderson

    Rickey may be skipping this movie.

  • May 17, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST


    by misnomer

    I would read your post, but in all honesty, the sequels were so bad they dont warrant analysis. All I know is that "the desert of the real" is the title of the first chapter in "simulacra and simulation" where baudrillard argues that a representation of a reality soon becomes the reality itself, through an example of the "map" becoming the desert. I think he touches upon iconography later on in the book. Morpheus has always sounded close to Orpheus and I'm assuming that Neo is named as such in reference to neo-realities, and of course it's one spelt backwards. That said, there are alot of rich themes touched upon in the films, but that still doesnt make them anything less than disappointing films

  • May 17, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Thanks, pillow talk.

    by biggles2_22

    I got hung up on "duality of heaven-underworld" and breezed right over it. Isn't there an unwritten rule about not cutting and pasting from Wikipedia?

  • May 17, 2007, 2:01 p.m. CST


    by iamsosmrt

    I don't really see how people expected anything besides popcorn action effects cheese out of these movies. The thing about comparing the Pirates franchise to the Matrix is that the Matrix through all of its biblical references and philosophical questions pretended to be something more than a typical action movie. I don't think the same can be said of a movie based on an amusement park ride. The first movie was better than expected, thanks mostly to Johnny Depp and some to Geoffrey Rush. The second one was kind of what I expected the first one to be, big and shiny but not particularly special. Its not like were dealing with transcendant geniuses here in Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer, they made the same kind of big summer movie Bruckheimer has been making for years. I was more surprised that the first one was good, not that the second one was mediocre. Just go see the third one if you want to see cool monsters and fights and stuff like that, because it probably isn't going to be anything deeper.

  • May 17, 2007, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Johnny's busy

    by crookedhook

    Just FYI, the reason why Johnny Depp is not participating in the junket is because he's finishing the final days on Sweeney Todd. Production was postponed so that he could care for his ailing daughter. The reason why he's not participating is completely unrelated to Pirates 3. In fact, he will be attending the premiere at Disneyland.

  • May 17, 2007, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Pirates is Good

    by TheGuyInTheBackRowTalking

    I liked me some Matrix, what with the punching and the shooting and all. Oh yeah, and when Pirates 3 hits, imma eats me some popcorn and turn off my brain for a bit. Here's hoping Pirates 3 has ninjas in it. Go Ninja Go Ninja Go!

  • May 17, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Pirate Joke

    by manzoniman

    Pirate walks into a bar, naked except for a giant steering wheel he holds in front of him. His penis sticks through the hole in the steering wheel. Pirate: "Ahoy barkeep! Give me a pint of yer finest!" Bartender: Okay, sure dude, no problem; but uh, what's up with the steering wheel and your um, dick sticking through it? Pirate: "Aye! It's driving me nuts!"

  • May 17, 2007, 11:58 p.m. CST

    you are truly geeks

    by Alpha Trion

    You dont ride a rollercoaster to discuss the meaning of life and you dont go to a summer disney blockbuster to watch something deep and thought provoking. Even when hollywood attempts these things, its still contrived hollywood nonsense in the end. big deal. These movies are meant to make you forget the "real" world for a few hours and my son and I are looking forward to that escape next weekend. some of you take these summer movies way to seriously, especially since most of them are made for kids and teenagers anyways.