Author’s Note: Spoilers after the cut

Last week, I found semblance of life outside my hermit’s cave, went out with the (future) missus and watched Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End. Now, with still a few choices of what to watch with Shrek 3 and Spider-man 3 (yeah, very late), we decided on Pirates since we also watched the last installment together (especially since it had a cliffhanger ending). To our benefit, we found it quite entertaining to give Pirates a thumbs up.

Now for a few takes. Just to my dismay, the story centered a bit too much on the Elizabeth Swan character. To those who haven’t watched any of the films, Elizabeth Swann was the damsel in distress in the first two movies who now sports a femme-fatale-in-trousers role in this one. Sure some feminists might see it as female empowerment, but it just didn’t work for me. Hehe. Yeah, sure I’m a male chauvinist pig.

For one, I don’t like Keira Knightly at all and that greatly affects how I felt about her character. Keira would always be a Amidala clone. Two, I don’t really like having “the girl in the mix” in swashbuckling adventures like Pirates. I’d rather have them kick butt a la Lara Croft.

Okay, so in fairness, they gave Elizabeth real power in 3 but that was just a bit too short-lived, she has always been Will Turner’s bitch. And I think Orlando Bloom and his Will Turner character has got to be one of the greatest douchebags in adventure movies. Jack Sparrow outshines the Turner character ever time.

Speaking of Jack Sparrow, again, Johnny Depp is amazing in the role. But for some reason, the Jack Sparrow character lost its luster of novelty since it’s already the third installment. But he’s still the character to watch.

While I may have been spewing venom at the characters, all in all, Pirates 3‘s a visual treat. I also love the pace since it left me with no yawning moments. Plus Bulletproof Crouching Tiger Chow-Yun Fat was there so his presence alone gave me something to enjoy.

Now if only Gateway cinemas lower their ticket prices again. Tsk. 170 bucks for a movie?!?