Australia

So, I finally went and saw the movie Australia with Andre for my birthday yesterday. I had mixed feelings about it, but my overall impression upon leaving the cinema was: Wow. Baz, oh Baz. You are a genius.

Rewind to before entering the cinema. I'd heard the critics didn't like it (although I had not heard any of the actual critics themselves). I'd heard some Australian critics had been favourable, and that apparently American audiences didn't "get" it. (This didn't surprise me). I'd heard Nicole Kidman was cold, aloof and stiff. I'd heard Brandon Walters was a gem. I'd heard David Wenham made a damn good bad guy. I'd heard that people I actually knew who'd seen it, loved it.

In short, I really didn't know what to expect. I was hoping to enjoy it, but expecting that it wouldn't be amazing.

The first twenty minutes to half hour, I did cringe a bit. When it started being narrated by Nullah (the little half-caste boy, acted by Brandon Walters), I was taken by surprise, but I got used to it and grew to love it. Nicole Kidman was a little aloof, and her accent was terrible. (NB: The accent itself was good. It just didn't appear often. It came and went. After the first half hour or so, she became consistent. It was more of a posh, refined Australian accent, but it worked. I think a real English accent would have distracted me.) But her character, Lady Sarah Ashley, was cold and aloof at the beginning. She didn't want to go to Australia, she just wanted to sell that damned cattle property and drag her (suspected cheating) husband back to England. She wasn't there to make friends with the property hands, and her first encounter with her companion, the Drover (Hugh Jackman), did not make a favourable impression. (He was in the middle of a massive pub brawl, which her luggage got caught up in and used as weapons.) When she arrived to discover her husband was dead, she was content to sell the property to neighbouring cattle baron "King" Carney (Bryan Brown) for a pittance, and go straight back to England.

But then Lady Sarah Ashley discovered a plot hatched by Carney. Together with her husband's station manager Fletcher (David Wenham), Carney had been stealing the best of the unbranded Ashley cattle, so Ashley had been making a loss and the property was about to collapse. It looked like it was worth nothing, when in reality, it was worth a mint. Carney was also determined to win the contract to supply the Australian army with beef for World War II.

When Lady Sarah discovered this, she also discovered a determination to beat Carney to the contract. Having dismissed Fletcher (and consequently, all the cattle handlers) for his cattle-smuggling, she had nobody to drove her 1500 head of cattle to Darwin. She ended up convincing the Drover (who had escorted her from Darwin to the property, Faraway Downs) and his two Aboriginal sidekicks to assist. The Drover insisted that seven drovers were needed for the trip, and he only had three. Consequently, Lady Sarah roped in two other female aboriginal servants from the homestead (who were both very experienced horseriders and had dealt with cattle), herself, and the little half-caste Nullah (whose mother was one of the servants from the homestead). Their trip is wrought with danger, not just from the environment but also from Fletcher and his cronies, sent by Carney to make sure the Ashley cattle don't reach Darwin.

As a consequence of her droving experience with this group of misfit, makeshift drovers, Lady Sarah Ashley considerably softened, growing attached to each of her new companions, especially Nullah. There were scenes where Lady Sarah was absolutely enraged, and Nicole Kidman was convincing. There were scenes were she was terrified, and again Nicole did an excellent job. Some of her facial expressions and mannerisms were familiar from other movies, but I don't think a person can ever completely change every little thing about themselves.

Throughout the story, Nullah battled to find somewhere to fit in. He didn't completely fit in with Aboriginals (although his grandfather, suspected murderer of Maitland Ashley, had trained him and wanted to take him walk-about), but certainly didn't fit in with the white people. Brandon Walters was amazing. He displayed a wonderful innocence of a little boy who didn't understand the politics of the grown-up world, but also the pain and fear of a little boy who was rejected by a large chunk of society and lived in fear that the next car would be full of coppers come to take him away.

Throughout the sequence of events, Nullah and his grandfather (remember, suspected murderer) do get caught by the coppers and taken to Darwin. Just before this point there is a marked split in the movie. The drove to Darwin itself is one story, but then it flows into another.

Thinking Nullah's just gone walk-about with his grandfather, the Drover is indifferent to his disappearance. Thinking he might have been taken by the police, Lady Sarah heads to Darwin in search of him. It's there that they get caught up in the bombing of Darwin. Everyone involved in these scenes shone. Most of the characters were split up, and nobody knew what had happened to anybody else. Hugh Jackman, upon thinking Lady Sarah is dead, does the most convincing, heart-breaking performance I've ever seen a man do in that type of situation. Nicole Kidman performs similarly both when Nullah is first taken to Mission Island, and then when she hears Mission Island was bombed first. David Wenham is easy to despise and makes a very good bad guy.

So any criticisms regarding the acting, in my opinion, must be coming from very, very picky viewers. I thought it was extremely convincing, and you get completely drawn into the characters' situations.

There are also criticisms floating around about it being too long, too many storylines, etc etc. That comes down to a personal preference, I think. People who don't enjoy the story will definitely be bored by the length. People who do enjoy the story will forget about the length. The only point where I looked at my watch was at the point I mentioned earlier, where it felt like the movie was ending. I thought "that can't be right, it hasn't been anywhere near three hours, not to mention we haven't seen the bombing yet!" So I checked my watch to see if it really had been three hours. (It had only been an hour and a half).

I've also heard Australians complain that it is simply perpetuating a Crocodile Dundee-type stereotype; that most Australians don't live in the Outback, don't talk Ocker, and really live much more sophisticated, city lives. Why can't we Aussies produce movies like the Americans? Well that, in my opinion, would completely defy the point of making a movie called "Australia". The point is, in 1939, that really is how a lot of people lived. Not just the drover's life, but life in a tiny Australian city (Darwin). Even today, a huge percentage of Australian outback is cattle stations. It's an ignored, but very real part of Australian history and society. And regarding the claim that Australians don't really talk Ocker: well for starters, if you think that, you probably live in Sydney and have never been any further west than Penrith. Get out a bit more and get to know your own country. Trust me, Aussies talk like that. However, there's really not a lot of ocker in the movie, so it's not much of an issue in my mind.

Other people claimed it was historically inaccurate. For starters: it's a MOVIE, people. Not a documentary. It's not meant to be real. Having said that, it was very accurate. The bombing scene unfolded exactly the way I've imagined it over the years of reading books (both fictional and non-fictional) on the bombing and from visiting museums in Darwin. Most of the buildings along the foreshore of Darwin were demolished by the bombs. The only part that stood out to me as being historically inaccurate were the Japs who landed on Mission Island. In the real war, no Japs ever landed in Australia. There were a few who bailed into the sea and were washed onto "Mission" Island (actually called Bathurst Island) (and prompty taken prisoner), but the scene in the movie was an organised hunt for survivors. But that's okay. This isn't a documentary.

Culturally, I think there was a bit of inaccuracy too. There was a lot about Nullah and his aboriginal grandfather, and the idea that Aboriginals can "sing" their way around as navigation or to draw one another together (again, a type of navigation). I'm pretty sure this isn't true. But again, it's a significant part of the movie. It bothered me a little, but I eventually got over it. I think it contributed to Nullah's part in the movie. When he was taken to Mission Island, and she was promising to come and get him, he told Lady Sarah "I'll sing you to me, I'll sing you to me". Music was a key component of communication in the movie; both the Aboriginals' navigational songs, and a little mouth organ originally owned by the accountant, then passed on to Nullah. So I learnt to accept it; I doubted it's culturally true, but hey, it's a movie, and it's part of the story. If you get your nose out of joint over things like that, you shouldn't be watching a movie. Go home and put on the Discovery Channel.

Before the movie came out, a lot of critics latched onto the fact that a lot of stunning Australian scenery was filmed, and said things like "Baz is just relying on Australia's natural scenery" etc etc. I must admit, for the most part the I was completly oblivious to the scenery. I've been out there and seen that stuff myself, and while there were some really amazing shots, I was usually too caught up in what was happening to pay much attention. There were one or two shots that were for pure aesthetic reasons (eg. just as the team was setting up camp for the evening), but even they served a purpose. The movie certainly did not rest on the natural Australian scenery. In fact, a lot of it was harsh, dry, unforgiving desert. Majestic, but not what you'd rely on aesthetically to boost a movie.

SO, summarised: I can understand people who simply didn't like the story, and so got bored due to the length, or whatever. But if it's for some pansy reason like "inaccuracy", they either need to get out and discover Australia's culture and history a bit more, or else get out of the movie theatre and in front of a documentary. I thought the movie had its weak spots, but they were easily carried through by the excellence of the rest of the movie.

Fiftieth Blog Post: Christmas!

My Christmas this year was a relatively different one, but I enjoyed it. I read on a blog recently that Christmas always seems to be a bit of an anti-climax; it never lives up to the anticipation and hype of the weeks previous. I have to say, I definitely related to that view. It's not always like that, but I've certainly had Christmases where I think, "that was it?"

This year wasn't one of them. While it was my first Christmas without my immediate family, it was also my first Christmas with Andre (ever since we started dating at the beginning of 2005). Our first Christmas I was in Bunbury, Western Australia; our second Christmas he was on the Gold Coast; our third Christmas, I was in Dodgers Ferry (Hobart), Tasmania.

Even if my family had been in town, we'd have had no problems figuring out how to spend Christmas. Andre's family has a special Christmas dinner and gift-giving on Christmas Eve in conjunction with his brother's birthday, which is Christmas Eve. So we spent Christmas Eve with Andre's family. Christmas breakfast was a quick affair (ham and cheese croissants) before church at 8. We had Christmas lunch with my grandparents and two uncles (Mum's parents and two of her brothers) which was the smallest Christmas gathering I've ever had without my immediate family. (When I'm travelling with immediate family, it's just the six of us, but when we're at home it's always with extended family. This time it was without the immediate family.) As such, Christmas lunch was a little over-catered; we had roast turkey and ham with vegetables, and along with the snacks Grandma provided (grapes, cherries, chips, biscuits, cheese and dip) I had brought rum balls, apricot balls, white Christmas and gingerbread biscuits. Needless to say, I brought most of the apricot balls home, a lot of the rum balls, a lot of the gingerbread biscuits and all of the white Christmas. I'd taken the same snacks to the de Jagers' the night before, leaving some of it with them, so I was slowly offloading my baking onto others!

Christmas night (no dinner!) we went looking at Christmas lights with Andre's family. We had originally intended to go to the Campbells' place for board games afterwards, but the light-hunting ended up taking so long we didn't end up doing anything else afterwards. Once we came home (at about 10) we still stayed up for a long time afterwards relaxing; Andre playing his shoot-the-zombies computer game, and me chatting to friends online :) It was a nice way to end Christmas, even if it did mean we went to bed way too late. But hey, what's Boxing Day for other than sleeping in?

Hoping everyone else had a lovely, relaxing Christmas with friends or family, enjoying the giving of presents to loved ones and remembering the ultimate gift that God gave to us on the first Christmas; his son Jesus, the fulfilment of his promise, the sacrifice to bring us eternal life with God. Merry Christmas.

650 Prominent Scientists Speak Out Against Global Warming

Today I stumbled across a US Senate Minority Report featuring six hundred and fifty scientists who are in dissent against man-made global warming. Many of the scientists included are former UN IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists who have realised what a con the whole thing is.

Often when confronted with scientists who are in disagreement with climate change, proponents like to say "oh, but they're a different kind of scientist who doesn't know about weather". Well, obviously these scientists know their stuff- they were good enough to be appointed onto the IPCC in the first place!

These 650 scientists are "more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers." (The Summary for Policymakers gave advice to politicians on what steps to take to reduce climate change). The report also says that "a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” " In fact, at the 2008 International Geological Congress ("dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games"), two thirds of presenters and question-askers "were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC".

So let's hear what some of these 650 scientists had to say...

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning."
- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” -Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

I can't believe how anyone who knows a thing or two about the basic weather patterns of the earth believes in man-made global warming. It's quite clear, from commonly known facts and from these sorts of quotes, that the earth has been through warming and cooling patterns previously; another warming process is natural! (That is, if we're going through one at all). It's also known that other planets have undergone warming processes recently, and even the sun's temperature has increased. Obviously humans have not caused this!

It's absurd, it really really is. Kudos to those scientists willing to put their jobs on the line to speak the truth.

Kara's 'Denial' Party

Last Friday was Kara's 21st party. It had a 'Denial' theme, so we were all to dress up as kids' characters. We had pirates, a jedi, Little Red Riding Hood, Snow White, Woody (from Toy Story), fairies, Where's Wally, Hannah Montana and goodness knows what else. André and I were the pirates, and I have to say, I was very proud of the scars I gave myself for it ;) The vest I got for the costume was awesome, even awesomer due to the fact I got it for $4.75 off eBay.

Scar #1: Back of the hand

Scar #2: Right cheek (I actually had people stare at this and say "...that's not real, is it? Did you paint it on?")

André and I as pirates ^_^

Katie (Hannah Montana), Kara (Little Red Riding Hood), me (Pirate)

André (Pirate) and Brad (Woody) being manly men, and Matt (fairy princess) attempting and failing miserably.

James (Oscar the Grouch) and Marnie (Oscar's friend Slimey... it took me a few hours to remember Slimey, but I do now!)

Flood: 100mm in 1 hour!

I'm sure most people are aware of when many parts of Townsville flooded on Monday morning. I knew it was raining hard, and that my back yard was flooding, but didn't realise half Townsville looked like that! I was happy that I woke up for this one, too, seeing as I slept through the last storm we had.

Here are my photos of my backyard and patio (wish I'd taken photos of the front too...)

People choosing not to have children

I saw an article on TodayTonight tonight which positively disgusted me. (I think it was TodayTonight, anyway. More likely that than A Current Affair).

It was about couples who are choosing not to have children. That in itself is not my problem. I think that Christians have a command from God to procreate (which is not always possible), but when it comes to secular society, we can't expect to put our standards upon them. So the choice, in itself, not to have children, is not one I take issue with. What appalled me was the attitudes behind some of the people interviewed for the article.

There was an abounding view that children are a nuisance, noisey, a drain on the hip pocket and even- get this- bad for the environment.

The reporter made comparisons between how much it costs to raise a child and the type of car you could buy for that amount. I can't remember exact figures now, but it was along the lines of '1 child costs $300,000 to raise- that would buy you fancy car X; 2 children cost $500,000- that would buy you fancy car Y; 3 children cost $650,000- that could buy you fancy car Z'. (As if any normal person spends $300,000 on a car anyway). What the article failed to point out was a LOT of the money it costs to raise a child gets given to parents in the form of family allowances from the government (unless the family earns a ridiculously large amount of money anyway). It also ignored the fact that nobody would save the amount of money they'd otherwise spend on a child for twenty years; they'd buy a new computer, bigger TV, fancier fridge, new dishwasher etc- they'd never actually end up with the car. I understand the car was not the point of the exercise, but the potential parents wouldn't end up that much extra in-pocket; the money would find its way out in other ways. Then again, I suppose these are people who'd prefer a new TV to a child. I would also be unsurprised if these figures were unnecessarily high; people these days spend far too much money on their children.

There was also a woman who said she felt "smug" and that she had the "moral high ground" because due to the fact she was not having children, she was therefore not increasing her contribution to global warming. Another man said it was "irresponsible" of the government to offer a baby bonus and encourage procreation when we are supposedly facing shortages and more people would damage the environment further. (Well, if you are buying fancier appliances and cars with the money you'd otherwise be spending on kids, you're probably pumping just as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as the family next door.) Do these people think the environment is more important than people?

I can't remember the last time I wanted to slap someone more.

Some of the women claimed that they would not be able to handle the noise that children make. Okay, sure, babies can be very noisey. But if you train kids well, to be quiet when they are told, you really shouldn't have such major noise issues when they're older that you wouldn't be able to "handle" it. The smug woman also claimed she was "too busy" for children and that they require a lot of time and attention that she would not be able to give them. I heard this attitude in several of the interviewees. This absolutely reeks of someone who puts more importance on her job and lifestyle than people. This theme was continued by the couple who said they enjoyed travelling too much, and that really, their adventures were their babies; they had to put in money, time, organisation etc just like it requires for a child.

And then these people resent the fact that parents think they're selfish because they don't want to have kids?

My guess is that most people going down this road have come from broken families, or homes where Mum and/or Dad were more interested in their job/lifestyle than their kids, and so have had imparted to them the attitude that kids are a low priority. The upside of this all is, (if my guess is right), eventually the only people left procreating will be those imparting the attitude that kids are a high priotity, good family values and good family-raising policies to their kids. These kids will likely go on to have their own families, and the other 'choose to be childless' people will die out, because- wow- they have no kids.

Again, that last paragraph is speculation. But really- if they're not valuing their money, lifestyle and jobs over children, they're valuing the environment over children. I'm not sure which is worse. I can't remember the last time I was so disgusted with a person.

Finally: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

So, I finally watched Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End on Saturday. And I have to admit, I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would.

It was more original than Dead Man's Chest, and didn't over-borrow from The Curse of the Black Pearl like Dead Man's Chest did.

What I realised, at the end of this movie, was that Disney has used Dead Man's Chest to embark upon a whole new story for Pirates of the Caribbean that can be drawn over several movies. The Curse of the Black Pearl was very much its own movie; while Dead Man's Chest and At World's End both stand on their own, they are both part of a larger story that will be continued by Pirates of the Caribbean 4, and then potentially 5.

I'm not as annoyed by potential sequels as I originally was. I originally thought a sequel (Dead Man's Chest) was an understandable move. I then thought that a third (At World's End) was subjecting Pirates to a slow and painful death. Instead, I found that instead of simply dragging out a story that was originally supposed to sustain only one movie, they've bounced off the success of The Curse of the Black Pearl to create a whole new story.

So back to At World's End. When I first read the synopsis for this movie back in 2006, I cringed. It sounded like they were simply throwing together all the key characters from the last two movies to a) save Jack Sparrow and b) save Elizabeth Swann from kidnap (well, the movie does need some of its own storyline!). Well, yes, Elizabeth Swann was somewhat taken aboard a ship when really she shouldn't have been, but it hardly classifies as kidnap and she ended up being made Captain of the ship, so I don't see who's complaining.

However, the movie came off better than that. Saving Jack Sparrow was only the beginning of their problems; Cutler Beckett proved to be the main baddie, now controlling the seas with Davy Jones doing his bidding, due to his possession of Jones' heart. This had the potential (and kind of lived up to it) of being a good storyline. They needed to do away with Beckett, and to do that, had to do away with Davy Jones. And to do both of the aforementioned goals, they needed all nine Pirate lords to band together and fight, when most would rather keep to themselves or hide away in the fortressed Shipwreck Cove. That part of the storyline worked well, in my opinion.

The love story between Calypso and Jones, while a little confusing in my mind, did prove to be applicable to the main story, as it was Calypso's curse on Jones (that he had to ferry the dead to the underworld, meanwhile being unable to step foot on land except once every ten years) that had a lot of bearing on the interaction between Jones and the other key characters. No points for whoever guessed Tia Dalma was Calypso, though; I found that a tad predictable. It did take me a bit longer, however, to realise why she had brought Barbossa back to life and assisted in bringing Jack back from Davy Jones' locker; she needed them, as two of the Pirate lords, to release her from her human form. Good; this tied up the loose end from Dead Man's Chest. Is also a cold shower on those who thought there was something going on between her and Jack.

However, I found the experience in Singapore and the character of Captain Sao Feng to be somewhat unnecessary. While Feng would have made an appearance as part of the Pirates' Council, there was no need to establish him any further than the other Pirate lords. The experience with him in Singapore only served as a forum to explain to the viewer how the main character procured a ship and crew to save Jack; this could have been solved by another trip to Tortuga rather than bringing in new characters and new places. However, perhaps returning to Tortuga would have reeked too much of the first two movies? Either way, I found Singapore and Sao Feng unnecessary. Sure, it was through Feng that Elizabeth became Captain, and ultimately, King of the Pirates, therefore (unwittingly) enabling Jack Sparrow's treachery, but I'm still convinced that could have been done without the whole Singapore scene at the beginning. Perhaps it was just for the humour element? I just found it all a bit peripheral to the main storyline.

Now that Dead Man's Chest has firmly established Jack Sparrow as a double-crosser who is only interested in self-gain (but who usually makes the right decision at the very last minute), I was able to enjoy his double-crossing exploits in At World's End better than I did in Dead Man's Chest. I'm intrigued to know what stories he spins to get the Black Pearl back. This also makes it easier to like Barbossa. While he was painted as the bad character in The Curse of the Black Pearl for his mutineering ways, the knowledge that Jack Sparrow is as much a double-crosser as he is makes the banter between them a lot more enjoyable; you can just appreciate the humour instead of worrying which one will come off on top.

Bringing back Mullroy and Murtogg was also quite enjoyable, especially seeing them become pirates in the end. And of course Pintel and Ragetti, everybody's favourite pirates. They must get a mention. I also appreciated one of the few throw-backs to The Curse of the Black Pearl; when Pintel says sadly to Elizabeth as she's forced from the Black Pearl, "Bye bye, Poppet".

However, this whole quite-enjoyable-if-mildly-convoluted storyline took a severe battering in my mind in the last fifteen minutes.

Strike One: Will being killed. Seriously; that's just not on. That was slightly redeemed in my eyes (as was Jack Sparrow) when Jack caused Will to stab Davy Jones' heart, therefore killing Jones and (I thought) ending the curse of the Flying Dutchman. I was under the impression Will's heart had been stabbed; therefore, there was no more captain of the Flying Dutchman, meaning its rule of the seas was over. Jack was redeemed in my eyes for forgoing his dream of captaining the Dutchman himself to see its demise.

Strike Two: Will survived. Ironic, I know, considering Strike One. But the second strike is more than just Will surviving. If that was all it was, it would have been great. But what bothered me was that the Dutchman's rule of the seas was NOT over and the curse that was originally a personal revenge issue between Calypso and Jones, and should have been destroyed with Jones' death, wasn't destroyed and is now upon Will. Slightly redeemed by the fact at least the Dutchman is captained by someone good and not bad.

Strike Three: This then suggested to me that this was what Jack Sparrow intended; that he chickened out from having the curse upon him and so condemned somebody else to it. He was again redeemed in my mind when I realised that he probably knew the only way to save Will was to make him Captain of the Flying Dutchman, and so was aiming to save Will when he made him stab Jones' heart.

Strike Four: Will is now banished to the seas for ten years at a time, only being able to come ashore and see Elizabeth for one day every ten years. I'm trusting this will be resolved in Pirates 4. I wondered why he didn't just take Elizabeth aboard the Dutchman, keeping it above water? He spent time aboard it when he was alive; why not her?

Strike Five: The realisation that somebody must now guard his heart; and that it's Elizabeth! Ew, not the way I was hoping Pirates to go.

Ultimately, there's still the hope that Pirates 4 will fix these strikes. And if I just ignore the last fifteen minutes of the movie, I really did quite enjoy it.