Movie Trilogies (and how they fail) [UPDATED]

Who among us hasn't seen The Matrix and thought to themselves, "This is an interesting if somewhat gnostic movie? (not everyone worries about gnosticism. -ed.)" Now, who here thought the two sequels took an unusual theme and shiat all over it?

Even the most lax movie goer (IE: me) knows a life lesson when I see it; don't do that kind of trilogy again. Where the only thing Epic about the movies were their cliffhanger and world-upheaving story change. Someone didn't tell the Pirates of the Caribbean guys.

Out of the blue the East India Trade Co. has managed to take control of all ports, Galactic Empire style. They know about Jack Sparrows compass, and its nifty "what you desire most" functionality. Not to mention the underlying reason for wanting the bloody thing, because they know of the existence, and method to controlling, Davy frigging Jones and his ship the Flying Dutchman. Ladies and gentlemen, the shark has been jumped. Gansta' style.

If some eccentricities were present, we should accept them into the fiction. Aztec Gold isn't normally cursed, after all. Bad movie telling should not. If you have to have your two main characters have the love/marriage scene during a fucking sword fight against the Dutchman, you're doing it wrong. Loose ends are allowed, we need a reason for sequels don't we? Failing to provide a logical ending is the domain of the Matrix WTFBBQ-edition.

In short, if you have a gift card and you want to rent either Pirates of the Caribbean sequel: DON'T

Let it be known, I refrained from doing a PETA joke. Your welcome.