...is exactly right, as is Zacharek.

AWE is the worst movie that I've seen in recent memory. There were a few interesting scenes and images (such as the rocks turning into crabs, and Davy Jones), but even Keira Knightley and Johnny Depp couldn't save this incoherent lump of a movie from being a taxing bore.

Want to see a fun and entertaining movie? Check out "Knocked Up" instead.

After reading Zacharek's review I went to the theater expecting the worst. The worst was the mistaken shallowness and pretentiousness of Zacharek's review.

AWE astounded me from beginning to end. Complex? You bet! In the best meaning of the term. There was cinematic symbolism worthy of Kubrik, David Lean, Hitchcock and a raft of other classic filmmakers.

I'm not usually a big fan of Verbinski but between his direction and the cinematographer's craftsmanship, there were scenes and shots I'd hold up to any art film. The complexity of the plot, visual density and pace of the film required you to keep all synapses firing. It was like watching a caper movie, a swashbuckling pirate movie, a sweeping epic, a corporate thriller and a mad-cap comedy at the same time.

And yes, there were indeed deeper subtexts throughout the plots (some not so deeply hidden and I have no idea how they got them past Disney) and weird surrealist filmmaking that should have satisfied even the toughest artsy critic.

I absolutely loved the letter pointing out the tones of Being John Malkovich. And Ms. Zacharek should have known about that the CGI techniques used for Davy Jones since the technique was much in discussion regarding the creation of Golem in LoTR.

But most importantly she should have reviewed the film in context with the film's purpose and intention in mind. It's like those people who blast Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer for being non-PC when, in fact, it was a daring and strong anti-slavery, anti-prejudice indictment for it's time. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was meant to be a conclusion for a trilogy of rollicking, fast, fun, action-adventure movies, not an art-house character study for your consideration, Oscar.

I shudder to think what Ms. Zacharek is going to do to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Curse of the Black Pearl, bought the DVD and have rewatched several times. The story and the ending left me happy and satisfied. I didn't feel the need for sequels, so I waited and rented Dead Man's Chest from a Red Box for a dollar. I fast forwarded through most of it. Based on that experience and the reviews of number 3, I will wait til this one hits the Red Box as well.

I don't know why I NEVER agree with Stephanie's reviews. I thought At World's End was brilliant. Brilliant.

The first one was an also-ran minus Johnny Depp's performance, which was fun but not great. The second one was stupid with overdoing the fish people and overdoing Johnny Depp. But this one had it all: suspense, tragedy and hilarity all rolled into one.

I don't get the negativity.

I agree that Zacharek should have known the method behind Davey Jones. The creation of that digital character might be one of the reasons that many people actually see the film, whether they realize or not. Maybe they just think he looks really cool. I'm not saying thats what a great film is based on, but the reviewer should at least have some idea what they are reviewing. A food critic hopefully has at least a small clue as to how certain dishes are created, etc... Davey Jones was a milestone in film making. having no clue about something of that scale within the field in which you work, albeit peripherally, is a bit of a shock.

That's what I thought, anyway. Yeah, the plots a bit confusing and it was difficult to tell what Calypso (to me anyway) was saying but still a lot of fun, worth a matinee and a big box of popcorn.

I think that a lot of people are finally pulling out the knives with which they meant to cut up the first film in this series. Way back in 2003 when word went round that Disney was making a movie based on a theme park ride I personally knew many people who wanted to hate it. When the movie came out and was unexpectedly entertaining I don't think that sat well with the people who were poised to hate it. Pirates 3 is a flawed movie, but lots of worse films that make just as little sense, and are much less inventive, get a pass. Make no mistake, a huge part of why so many critics (and a lot of insufferable cineasts) don't like this film is because Disney made it and its so damn big. At the end of the day, though, much of the movies' failure is the result of too much ambition. Look I don't want to make the argument that critics are out of touch and if its popular its good, but this movie is not "Wild Hogs" okay. There are wonders in this film and it is the big summer ride, and if your too much of a snob to see it then who needs you.

Action adventure shizzle is just that, shizzle. There are varying levels of quality. Pirates was great fun, Spiderman 3 needed an editor.

But wait! Commentary on our public polocy? Woa! The opening scene could have been filmed at guantanamo in a year, that is if you want to put an intellectual eye on it. Trials without due process - execution without trials, hmmm.

And with that, let's take the case of a "message" in the story. People do things they wouldn't normaly do because its "Good Business". The mantra for the film if there was one. That is the crux of this capitalist society we all live in, destroying environments and peoples and cultures for business where in the end those responsible say "it was good business". The pirates said it AND it was the antagonists last words before he was blown to bits. So, in a sense, this could have provided our fearless pop culter hater some fodder if she would have watched it instead of spending 3 hours hating it.

And they weren't "prosthetic tentacles", they were CGI for crying out loud!

Don't be like Fox, inform me with facts.