zekelyndon

Well, after seeing Pirates II, I didn't think it was possible for III to be any worse.... I was wrong. This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I understand that some movies are made just for ridiculous, but fun, action sequences and little or no plot line, and you can definitely tell which movies those are, but this one tried to have a decent plot, and failed miserably. Yes, the action sequences were fantastic and full of some of the most ridiculous stunts imaginable, but they in no way saved the horrible attempt at a plot line. With hardly any character development, far less Jack Sparrow than there should have been, the abandonment of the love triangle, the overly-dramatic attempt for an epic, and the complete lack of trying to be at least somewhat historically correct, the writers have caused cinema to reach a new low.

The first problem with the movie is that Jack Sparrow isn't seen for half an hour. Johnny Depp is pretty much what has made the Pirates films. And when you do finally get to see him, he has been downgraded to the status of comic relief, rather than the humorous hero he has played in the past. It is because of this that you actually start to wish that you see less of him. The corny, one-line jokes that just seem to perpetually flow forth from his mouth get old very, very quickly.

The second problem is, of course, the total lack of true interaction between the characters. Most of their speech is devoted to furthering the already failing plot, and the little that is actual development of their relationships is poorly written. Though I hated the idea of the love triangle between Will, Elizabeth, and Jack introduced in Pirates II, I was sad to see them completely abandon that idea, acting almost as though it had never happened.

The main problem that I had with the plot for this film is that it never really settled down. It was either moving forward far too fast for most of the audience to keep up with, or so dead still that half the audience was falling asleep (though the latter was far rarer). Plus the introduction of so many different plot devices and magic just made the story seem so implausible. I mean, I am a firm believer in the willing suspension of disbelief in small doses (such as the amount of disbelief I had to suspend in the first film), but if I was going to actually enjoy this movie, I would have had to have suspended it for almost the entire length of the film, and that's hard to do for near three hours.

And finally, the first film, as far as I know, was pretty much on par in terms of historical accuracy and pirate mythology. That is, it was very true to the era it was based in, and didn't have to add in all sorts of fantastical, magical things to give the film a sense of adventure. The only magic involved was the curse of the medallions. Which, while it may have dominated most of the plot, was rooted in some history and was presented in a plausible way. For that, I can suspend my disbelief. But when they start giving physical manifestations to Davy Jones (granted that was introduced in the second film, but still) and start calling Greek sea-nymphs (Calypso) Pirate goddesses; I'm sorry but I just can't do that. Not to mention them trying to claim that the pirates, as treacherous and murderous as they were, were actually all united under one flag is just ridiculous. No historical value (and very weak story value) whatsoever.

All in all, this film surpassed how terrible I expected it to be so horribly that I am honestly considering walking back to the theater and asking for compensation for the three wasted hours of my life.

I'm a fan of the Saw series, and Hostel (not of Hostel 2). I enjoy these types of movies and I'm only a tad ashamed. Call me a dumb, violence seeking goon but these movies are entertaining.

What's this got to do with Captivity? Well, nothing really. I was drawn to this movie because I thought it was going to be another retelling of this sick sub-genre of horror that I do so love. I was sadly disappointed because this absolutely is not a "torture porn" movie. It would have been much more honest of the production company, After Dark Films, to say it was a thriller with slight torture porn inklings (very slight).

Maybe, the folks at After Dark didn't actually see the movie. What I saw was psychological in nature and dealt much more with assaults on the mind of those captive than it did with actual assaults on the bodies of those captive. Yes, there is some blood and some nasty gore but nothing like Saw or Hostel or even Touristas.

Understand that if you don't like Saw, Hostel etc., then this is a good choice for a horror/thriller to go see this weekend.

Now that that's out of the way I'll just say: It's not a great movie but adequate. A solid B-movie endeavor. Fun, kind of stupid at times, pretty good acting by the luscious Elisha Cuthbert (for the guys-your girlfriends might get jealous) and the director, Roland Joffe (best known for The Mission, The Killing Fields), imbued the entire film with a look that worked very well to be creepy and ominous. It moves fairly quickly, lags a bit in the middle and ends with a slightly predictable twist but really you don't care at that point because, surprise, you've been entertained. Well, at least I was even though my hunger for gore was only slightly abated.

B-

Ever since Bram Stoker gave Count Dracula a Transylvanian lineage, Eastern Europe has been a familiar setting for horror tales. "Severance" continues the tradition by turning a corporate retreat in a Hungarian forest into a bloody game of kill everyone quickly. Our unsuspecting employees are a grumpy group of pencil-pushers employed by an international weapons manufacturer who find themselves marooned in a rundown lodge. Outside are land mines, bear traps and balaclava-wearing commandos; inside are spiders, rotting floorboards and a file cabinet with dusty records of the attackers, who are either asylum escapees or Balkan war criminals. "Severance" overcomes its clunky narrative with inventive bloodletting and no small amount of wit.