pirates of the caribbean III: at world's end: an epic study of surrealism: no really, think about it

i did not like the first "pirates" movie. i thought it was boring, and seriously when did keira knightly become so aggravating?

the second movie hurt me physically. i was confused and i was bored and i was dizzy from the 5 hour fight scene in a giant hamster wheel and there was too much keira talking out of her jaw and too few close ups of orlando.
and too much creepy octopus head guy. what was that about?

however,
i have renounced my anti-"pirates franchise" ways and i'll tell you why.
the third movie is genius.
the same minds which brought us "little monsters" and "godzilla" have indeed written a magnificently abstract piece of work. a few years ago i saw akira kurosawa's "dreams" and have not since enjoyed a surrealist film.
until now.

does "pirates of the caribbean: at world's end" make sense? no.
does it stick to one plot? no. how about two? nu uh. ten? hehe. not even close.
does time zip by making it completely unnecessary to look at your watch every 5 minutes? um, no. really, really no.
in fact, i think if i had tried to, you know, make sense of it i might have run mad for it's not a sensical film as much as a quagmire of intensely ephemeral plot points. that, along with the multiple captain jacks, the crabs-slash-rocks-slash-hu,-the-rocks-are-crabs moments, and keira knightley's orangey mystic tan... it's practically david lynchian.

yep, as i sat back and let the nonsensical, the incongruous, the dada-esque moments wash over me, it was truly cathartic.

or maybe it was just that i'd been walking around all day and i was just happy to be sitting somewhere air conditioned.
ya, actually that's what was cathartic.
so... um... nevermind.